site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   13520 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I suggested that employers are required to check working rights a few threads ago. It's what Australia does. Australia has approx double the "born overseas" population of Germany, the UK or the US. But we also have pretty unforgiving policy towards illegal immigration or even asylum-seekers (until proven that they are somewhat legit). Overall, I really believe these two policies (ruthlessly preventing illegal immigrants entereing + making sure everybody one meets in polite company has had an accountant or government bureaucrat check their papers) are why immigration is mostly a non issue in Australia.

Aside from this costing businesses more in wages, nobody really had an objection.

going after the employers is the best and only reasonable way to do anything about illegal immigration

As above, when implemented properly I think you need both. Australia sends asylum seekers to off shore detention facilities and don't let them set a foot on the mainland until they have been verified (this has been moderated a bit: we have onshore detention for low risk persons, e.g mums with 2 kids who aren't going to disappear the day after the hand cuffs come off).

But I do think this is a really good policy. It means that:

  • the individuals themselves have to keep their documentation up to date, or they stop getting paid. Out of date paperwork seems to be one of the major problems in the US right now.
  • the individuals have less incentive to immigrate unless they personally know who/how to find who will pay them under the table
  • there is a distribution of responsibility for ensuring people in country are supposed to work there. The government is doing it's checks, but Thompson from HR is also tracking Visas in a spread sheet.
  • politically viable: you are promoting jobs for americans.

So what's your objection?

Hasn't One Nation gotten to a mid twenties polling average now due to immigration being a huge dividing political issue that's essentially killed the Liberal party?

Like illegal immigration hasn't been the issue since yaddayadda stop the boats but acting like there currently isn't a super divisive immigration debate in Australia is confusing.

As of yesterday it has, yes. Before 2020 it was between 1-5%. By 2022 it was 5%.

Bondi was definitely a driver of the latest spike, so the message should be to reduce illegal immigration and violence perpetrated by immigrants.

Stop the boats worked as a policy and increased overall satisfaction for most voters. Aggressively dealing with illegal immigrants does work.

Does criticism of common bridging tactics like applying for asylum amongst random expired student visa holders count as issue with illegal or legal immigration to you?

Spurious claims of asylum are technically legal, but I'd group it into illegal for mental model purposes. Why?

are why immigration is mostly a non issue in Australia.

Didn’t you guys import like 20% of your population from China in the last 30 years and both your transport infrastructure and housing market are collapsing under the strain?

Is it not that immigration is objectively worse in terms of population-replacement in Australia, it’s just not a political issue because… Australians don’t have the self-preservation instincts that Americans do?

No most of our immigrants are british and kiwis over that time. In recent years, e.g. since 2019, india/china immigration has increased. But importantly these aren't illegals which is what the whole discourse.

Most foreign born australians are:

British, Kiwi, Chinese, Indian, Filipino.

it’s just not a political issue because… Australians don’t have the self-preservation instincts that Americans do?

My point was that it's not political and you can have both high immigration and high satisfaction with it. Re: infrastructure, no this isn't collapsing. Re: housing, yes but this seems to be a problem across the board with all alglosphere countries, including ones with half as much immigration as Australia.

In 2025 we had about 75,000 immigrants from the UK and NZ, and about 75,000 immigrants from India for context. Most of the chinese immigrants are on e.g. student visas or temporary visas, compared to most e.g. brits who move here permanently. So the self preservation thing here might be overstated.

But importantly these aren't illegals which is what the whole discourse.

Well… no it isn’t. Illegal immigrants are only slightly worse than legal immigrants (their real crime being their undeserving capture of the fruits of my patrimony that my ancestors toiled to build for me), and I think that this is at least a large minority opinion amongst the pro-Wall set.

The problem is the Great Replacement; whether it is being perpetrated legally or illegally is just ACKSHUALLY-nitpicking.

Yeah man I'm fine with a Kiwi coming over to Australia to install my HVAC, but that's just me.

Aren't whites going to be a minority in the states in like 20 years? How's that gel with the above comment?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats