site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   14046 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.

Fourthly, and most importantly IMO, there are much better mechanisms to get to where ICE wants to go. We already have a surveillance state for the IRS that involves essentially all banking institutions and Paypal. Why won't Congress pass any number of measures that would criminalize, fine, and prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants? If the economic opportunity were much more limited, nobody would jump the border if they couldn't feed themselves after! This would have immediate negative consequences for mostly red states, however, it would likely gut their economies in short order.

Yes. Imagine your neighbor's yard was overrun with cats and kittens, and his first impulse was to send in a bunch of men to go and kick the kittens, and pull on the tails of the cats, and to get into fights with the shrill animal rights activists who filmed his "enforcement and removal operations".

"You know, there is an easier way to fix this," you offer. "You could just pick up all the open cans of tuna that have been placed all over your yard. Then the problem would basically take care of itself."

"I couldn't possibly," your neighbor, Donald, replies. "There are so many cans!"

"About that," you continue. "Donald, you know your roommates are the ones leaving the cans all over your yard? Maybe ask them to stop. Or take away their can openers."

"And if they keep doing it?"

"I guess you might have to kick them out."

"Right," Donald says as he nods his head. "Yeah. And then I wouldn't need to hire the men to torture the kittens and cats, cause they would all just go away. And the obnoxious PETA people wouldn't even be able to say I was doing anything wrong. And it would be way cheaper and work way better."

"Exactly," you reply.

Donald feels a growing sense of relief as he think about his new cat free future. But then his mind catches on an unforeseen complication, and he sighs with the sudden grim realization that it couldn't possibly work: "But what about content for my "interrupting cats eating" social media accounts?" If my men can't kick kittens and pull on the tails of cats, the ICE X account will be dead in weeks."

"You're kidding me," you say. "That's your problem?"

"Yeah, Kristi would be crushed—she's the one overseeing this for me. She told me she hasn't had this much fun since she had to shoot that puppy of hers, uhm... Cricket." Donald shakes his head. "Oh well. It was a good thought anyway."

I'm fine with sending in a bunch of men to remove the cats and kittens. Especially since the people now claiming "Oh, go after the cans of tuna" favor providing free tuna by the palletload.

This sudden received indisputable wisdom that going after the employers is the best and only reasonable way to do anything about illegal immigration and, as a result, going directly after illegal immmigrants is cruel and should be verboten is not credible.

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?

They've entered the Australian political sphere as well in recent years. One Nation is polling above the Liberal party some places. I'm confused how you don't think migration is a major Australian political cause.

Because of what I said previously. Immigration hasn't been a major political issue compared to the UK or Germany. One Nation has received under 5% of votes for the last 20 years, despite us having twice the amount of immigrants as those countries.

Since covid there's been a general backlash from voters of both sides of the aisle re: cost of living and cost of housing. This has raised the question of immigration in spheres that aren't racial. E.g. a labor party (left wing) candidate saying they want to reduce immigration to decrease the demand for housing.

One Nation has obviously been around forever, but has always been unpopular. It's recent success (in polls, not in practice) is attributed to both cost of living and more recently, Bondi.

German anti immigration parties are getting 20%+ in the polls. UK voted for brexit at least partially, or wholly, as a response to immigration. Australia just doesn't have that movement.

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