site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   13120 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I agree that ICE should be allowed to operate openly, under the authority of the president, in any American city. I think the real-time obstruction of their operations is bad (and a calamitous mistake as well).

But allowing agents to wear masks destroys accountability and increases the volatility of every interaction by introducing uncertainty about their authority. Lack of accountability erodes confidence that the government can carry out its commitments, which depresses future cooperation.

On a more visceral level, even the mildest encounter with an armed, masked man is scary as hell. I wager it will badly degrade Americans' view of law enforcement officers if it continues much longer.

I'm sympathetic to the interests of ICE agents: their desire for not just their safety, but the safety of their families. But masks asks too much. The tradeoff isn't worth it, especially when there are alternatives: pursue the threats against agents, investigate, throw the book at the culprits, whatever. But don't empower stare security forces to become a nightmare that no one wants their political opponents to control.

It seems to me that the reasonable compromise is for ICE agents to have clearly identifiable and displayed badges.

That would probably be sufficient, though I wouldn't really like it.

The tradeoff isn't worth it, especially when there are alternatives: pursue the threats against agents, investigate, throw the book at the culprits, whatever.

These aren't plausible alternatives when local officials refuse to enforce state and local law. ETA: And federal judges show little willingness to allow prosecutions.

I agree that the intransigence of local officials strengthens the case for allowing masks, but:

  • The FBI is available, and my priors are that the Trump administration would absolutely pursue that specific behavior.
  • I have not seen allegations, much less independent evidence of any sort, that state officials have refused to cooperate with investigations of the kind we're discussing, nor that federal judges have prevented prosecutions. I would not be surprised to see the worst of them drag their feet or apply extremely demanding scrutiny, but so far I don't even see that. I am willing to listen.

This is a problem entirely of the lefts making.

You want to have a good argument for why they shouldn't have masks? Don't be evil.

Harassment, stalking, doxxing, and violence are the tools of evil - and the left feels that way when it happens to those they support.

The need and desire for masks are caused by the actions of the same bad actors demanding that they don't have masks.

You don't like it? Fair - but fix the actual problem first.

I think obstructing ICE operations is reckless, deadly gamble. I think the people that participate share some responsibility for the injuries and deaths over the last year.

Furthermore, I acknowledge and condemn the abuse of on-duty ICE agents. Are you suggesting those incidents justify the fear of harassment, stalking, doxxing, and violence against off-duty officers?

My position, the steelman you asked for, is that we cannot absolve law enforcement officers of all accountability as a precaution.

My position, the steelman you asked for, is that we cannot absolve law enforcement officers of all accountability as a precaution.

Them wearing masks isn't absolving them of accountability.

I would certainly prefer they don't wear masks. But the behavior of "protestors" finding out who ICE agents are and getting into their private lives (most publicly with the Don Lemon church invasion), especially combined with the unwillingness of anyone who opposes Trump to allow any moves against such protestors, demonstrates they have good reason for it.

I propose that, if a government employee's targets can't even identify them, that employee is not accountable in a meaningful sense. A third party can identify them, but it's the target's political opponents, also meaningless.

I agree Don Lemon's stunt was bad, and I'm happy he's being prosecuted for it. But was it even a threat?

Throughout US history, officials have been in the same position as ICE employees: strikebreakers in the late 19th century, DOJ officials in charge of civil rights enforcement, and the varied law enforcement officials that decimated the mafia. All of those officials faced more urgent, demonstrable peril than ICE officers, yet the government protected the officials, they didn't hide them. (With the exception of juries, who are not government officials, and are accountable at least to one another.) Even when judges received death threats and prosecutors were tailed by mob associates, the government didn't conceal their identities, because doing so would have undermined its legitimacy.

I propose that, if a government employee's targets can't even identify them, that employee is not accountable in a meaningful sense. A third party can identify them, but it's the target's political opponents, also meaningless.

Who exactly has not been identifiable by their target? The ICE officials involved in an arrest or detention are all a matter of record, which is available by subpoena should the target initiate a lawsuit.

The third party capable of identifying them is in the DHS hierarchy, under the authority of their political opponents. That's a system that can work when there's sufficient trust, but that's not what we have today.

Has anyone not been identifiable when a subpoena has been issued?

De-masking is obviously a poison pill in this environment. I do agree with you that in a good society they shouldn’t wear a masks. We do not live in a good society. They will be targeted by opposition. It’s a less extreme version of saying Mexican military should demasks and have badges when targeting the Sinaloa Cartel. Obviously Sinaloa would execute entire Mexican military families. De-masked ICE likely see a handful of executions and a lot of annoyance in their everyday life.

We already have checkpoints by the opposition looking for ICE in Minneapolis.

If ICE became a legitimate paramilitary organization with 100k members in some random Arkansas town then we can demask. Where all their families live on a base.

The Mexican military is an ill-disciplined conscript army that loses half its members every year to desertion- the largest part of which is literally just cartels promising better food to soldiers that join already trained.

Mexican marines do the actual cartel fighting- masked and deployed away from their hometowns. They face reprisals but also are literally operating outside of civilian control; the reason they fight the cartels rather than the army is because the cartels have too much influence over the government for forces under full civilian control to be used against them(also, the whole 'half the army leaves to join the cartels for better food every year' thing).

I'd accept the necessity of anonymizing agents if there were a verifiable history of violence anywhere near the levels perpetrated by Mexican cartels. That appears appears to be about 400 murders alone per year over the last decade. We don't even have to get within an order of magnitude: I'd be more sympathetic if there were a ten or more independently verifiable incidents and for some reason alternative methods of deterrence didn't seem likely to work. I detest the use of masks, but I promise you I am not looking for a reason to lawyer my way out of these conditions.

I've looked for verifiable cases of harassment, stalking or violence against off-duty ICE officers and only found one so far, for threats and harassment, announced today. Perhaps there have been more: I wouldn't be surprised if major media outlets ignored them or applied maximum scrutiny before reporting on them, but I do think the Trump administration would have initiated more investigations and likely secured more arrests.

But from what I can tell, you're asking US citizens to make an enormous sacrifice to combat what evidence suggests is a minor threat, at best. Worse, this is over a year deep into the Trump administration authorizing the practice.

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