site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   24277 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 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.

Jury finds defendants guilty of terrorism-related charges in attack on Prairieland ICE detention center

Eight defendants were convicted of rioting, providing material support to terrorists, conspiracy to use and carry an explosive, and use and carry of an explosive — the explosive being fireworks. Daniel Sanchez Estrada was convicted of corruptly concealing a document or record. He and Maricela Rueda were also convicted of conspiracy to conceal documents.

Description of the event from Wikipedia:

On July 4, eleven people[1][21] gathered near the Prairieland Detention Center at 10:37 pm,[22] several dressed in black "military-style"[23] or black bloc clothing with their faces covered.[1][21] A suspect was seen removing a wagon filled with fireworks from a vehicle and pushing it towards the detention center.[20] Law enforcement officials allege that the participants conducted a "diversion" to draw ICE officers out into the open; fireworks were set off, the group split up into several smaller groups, and a participant spray-painted vehicles and a guard structure with slogans including "Ice pig" and "traitor".[2] One small group remained near the facility entrance, apparently keeping watch.[21] The ICE officers called 911 to report the incident to local law enforcement.[23][22]

Only one person (Benjamin Song, a former Marine reservist) in the group fired shots, nonfatally hitting an officer. The defense argued that the other members of the group intended only to peacefully protest and not to bait out officers for Song. This, of course, brings us back to the classic, airplane-on-a-treadmill style "Does Antifa exist" debate.

https://www.keranews.org/criminal-justice/2026-03-13/prairieland-detention-center-ice-antifa-shooting-terrorism-trial-verdict-texas

The jury heard several perspectives about the night of the shooting and the events surrounding it: a recap of Morris’ interviews with law enforcement after her arrest and direct testimony from cooperating defendants Sharp, Sikes, Kent, Thomas and Baumann.

All told law enforcement and the government that they didn't expect violence the night of July 4 — just a noise demonstration with fireworks. Morris told investigators she suspected Song used others present at Prairieland as a distraction so he could pull off his "fantasy" and run away.

The cooperating defendants' answers varied on whether a "North Texas antifa cell" existed. Some testified the people in their circles never seriously referred to themselves as members of antifa. Others named specific defendants they considered "antifa." Defense attorneys later sparred with Kyle Shideler, the prosecution's controversial antifa expert, over his testimony that the defendants' actions aligned closely with prosecutors called a handbook on antifa beliefs authored by Mark Bray. The prosecution wrapped up its case during closing arguments by describing Song as a "ringleader" who worked with his politically-aligned inner circle to coordinate an ambush at Prairieland, escape and hide any physical or digital evidence.

All these articles are light on evidence, so let's go to the DOJ press release.

Evidence at trial revealed that most of the Antifa Cell involved in the Prairieland attack looked to Benjamin Song as a leader. Song acquired firearms that he distributed to co-defendants and recruited members at gun ranges and combat sessions he conducted, as well as from various ideologically aligned groups. For example, defendants Ines Soto, Elizabeth Soto, and Savanna Batten were part of a group that created and distributed insurrectionary materials called “zines,” according to trial evidence.

Witnesses testified that an Alvarado police officer responded to the scene after correctional officers called 911. When the officer began issuing commands to defendant Nathan Baumann, Benjamin Song can be heard on police bodycam video yelling, “get to the rifles!” and then he opened fire on the officers, striking the Alvarado police officer in the neck as the unarmed correctional officers ducked and ran for cover. Police arrested most of the Antifa Cell shortly after the attack, many near the scene. Benjamin Song escaped and remained at large with the help of others until his capture on July 15, 2025.

Trial evidence demonstrated that collectively, the Antifa Cell acquired over 50 firearms in the Fort Worth/Dallas area prior to July 4. During trial, the government introduced numerous chats of the members, who used an encrypted messaging app to coordinate with each other that had auto-delete functions, permanently deleting some Antifa Cell members’ communications. They also used monikers in group chats to hide their identities, and some of the planning chats included only trusted participants. The chats introduced at trial revealed that members in this limited group conducted reconnaissance and discussed what to bring to the riot, including firearms, medical kits, and fireworks:

"rifles might make the situation more hot if this is the case either way" (Rueda)

"I think you'd be surprised. Cops are not trained or equipped for more than one rifle so it tends to make them back off" (Song)

From the texts released, it doesn't seem like there's firm evidence that they knew what Song was planning. Of course, many of the messages were deleted, so it's hardly exonerating.

So like, I understand that these people and their lawyers are just trying to find a way to stay out of prison, but it's still absolutely stunning to me that anybody can say with a straight face that a bunch of folks who all showed up at the same place at the same time wearing the same thing carrying loaded rifles and explosives, who then all participated in throwing those explosives at a bunch of police officers, were actually a bunch of totally unrelated individuals with completely independent and totally legal motives after one of them shot a police officer. Like yeah, I get it, you want to put up the best legal defense you can and you can't exactly admit that you were knowingly organizing terrorism, but who are they actually expecting to buy that?

Never underestimate 'There can't be any "members" of Antifa. It's just an idea, not an organization, bro.'

I get a distinct 'something is off' feeling every time I hear someone say that. I don't know why exactly but I'd like a name for it. Like when you hear something you know is wrong but also know that if you tried to explain why you'd be getting nowhere.

"Antifa activists" is a parallel to "Environmental activists". You can't be a member of "Environmental" either, because it's just an idea, not an organization.

Nobody cares about that fine distinction for environmentalism, like when Sea Shepherd ships ram whalers or when Last Generation Canada members throw paint on museum pieces. Outsiders recognize that the disparate groups (and non-affiliated individuals) all share a common goal and philosophy, and treat them as a coherent entity. This is as it should be.

Antifa is the leftiest of the left wing, so its adherents use tactics like "[not] Fucking Tell[ing] Me What Term I Am Allowed to Use for the Sweeping Social and Political Changes You Demand". 1984 may have overreached a bit when it said if you can't name something you can't think about it (hence the Party making Newspeak), but it sure does make it harder to legislate against something if you can't establish a definition first.

Nobody cares about that fine distinction for environmentalism, like when Sea Shepherd ships ram whalers or when Last Generation Canada members throw paint on museum pieces. Outsiders recognize that the disparate groups (and non-affiliated individuals) all share a common goal and philosophy, and treat them as a coherent entity. This is as it should be.

Why is it "as it should be" to look at environmentalists using low resolution? Surely there is a significant difference between a scientist studying climate change models who calls for using less fossil fuels, on the one hand, and Ted Kaczynski on the other. And plenty of people make the distinction, indeed it is unusual not to.

Notice that you yourself picked two particularly militant examples of environmentalists.

Even if you mean "nobody cares about that fine distinction for militant environmentalists", that is not true. Most people make a distinction between people who throw paint on museum pieces and Ted Kaczynski, and recognize that not only do their actions have different moral qualities, but they can also in no way be said to be part of the same organization. Indeed, since Kaczynski acted alone, his actions cannot be characterized as being the actions of any environmentalist association whatsoever.

To look at people who share common (or somewhat common) goals and philosophies as belonging to a coherent entity is the type of low resolution thinking that perhaps makes sense in the face of an existential threat, when there is no time to try to use higher resolution and to do so would decrease one's emotional willingness to fight, but even in that kind of a situation it would be just an expedient, not something that is good in itself.

Even if you mean "nobody cares about that fine distinction for militant environmentalists", that is not true. ... but they can also in no way be said to be part of the same organization

Unless you specifically mean Ted Kaczynski, and not violent eco-activists generally, this is complete nonsense, and of course people think they're a part of the same movement.

The reason Kaczynski doesn't fit is that he was following a different set of ideas than environmentalism, not because he was violent.

Even the militancy is hardly relevant. Few people bother drawing distinctions between violent and not violent Nazis, or violent and non-violent Jihadis.

Jihadis and Nazis, whether non-violent or violent, are pursuing evil aims. At least some environmentalists are pursuing good aims.

Bringing humanity to the light of Allah, doesn't sound evil in and of itself to me, and even a good leftist will find lots to agree with even in the OG Nazi party platform. So I don't see a reason to allow this kind of picking and choosing for one, but not the other.

I don't think this is the same kind of "picking and choosing". Sure, not all the aims of jihadis and Nazis are evil, but all jihadis and Nazis pursue at least some evil aims - whereas many (most?) environmentalists have wholly good aims. Thus any given jihadi or Nazi, even if they're non-violent, has some amount of evil intent, while the same is not true of a given non-violent environmentalist.

(And anyway, insofar as "bringing humanity to the light of Allah" is ultimately a euphemism for "enslaving humanity to the tyrannical will of a supernatural being" I would consider that an evil aim in itself, even before the specific of shariah law are taken into account.)

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