site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   19342 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 30, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

My best guess (and that is all I claim it is) is that we might get a baby-splitting decision that manages to somehow save the citizenship status of persons who have already been enjoying the privileges of citizenship due to being born here, whilst opening the door for denying future persons birthright citizenship on broader grounds, going forward.

Roberts really does love his 'compromise' rulings.

There is certainly an "estoppel" argument where, if the U.S. government has declined to challenge a person's claim to citizenship, and has been conferring upon them the benefits of citizenship since their birth, that it would be manifestly unjust to then later suddenly declare them a noncitizen without some other legitimate justification for expulsion.

But that wouldn't mean that every person in the U.S. going forward would get that same benefit. Surely there's also an argument that if a person enters the U.S. completely undocumented, in violation of multiple immigration laws (most of which were implemented after Wong Kim Ark), and the government by its actions (i.e., enforcing its immigration laws and siccing its agents on them to remove them) declares that it doesn't abide their presence here... any kid(s) they manage to pop out wouldn't be 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the U.S. in a politically meaningful sense?

It certainly seems, to me, that Citizenship should in theory require a governmental stamp of approval. That is, one shouldn't be able to just enter a territory, trigger some arbitrary condition ("eats a handful of the local dirt" as an absurd example) then declare themselves citizen without the government even being aware of their presence. Citizenship is a political designation after all.

Anyway, I am woefully underinformed (for an attorney) on 14th amendment matters. Its simply not my specialty, so this is me more going off my reads of the Justices themselves than strict legal reasoning. Birthright citizenship had been the default for so long that it never occurred to me to even consider if it could be challenged.

From the purely practical standpoint, if SCOTUS declares birthright citizenship completely inalienable outside of the few narrow exceptions, and congress won't use its clear authority to adjust this (which, I can't expect they will) then the only possible response that makes sense is to implement the most stringent border controls imaginable, if merely being born here gets you a valid social security number and entitlement to claim any and all benefits they might then qualify for.

That is, if we're going to maintain the current web of welfare benefits and entitlements and wealth transfers where existing citizens who are obligated to keep on paying taxes will be on the hook to pay for every single kid who happens to be born here, whether that kid is productive or not, and every single one of said kids will also be entitled to vote on the continuation and extension of such benefits, we're starting to diminish the political value of being a net taxpayer at all.

At some point it is valid to question whether the Constitution is still fulfilling the purposes it was created for as per the Preamble.

EDIT: And to be clear, I am absolutely fine with biting a bullet where even kids born in the U.S.A. where both their parents are citizens wouldn't inherently get to claim citizenship. I think exile is a politically useful tool and should be used more often, and its actually a bad thing that the U.S. only has the options of life imprisonment or execution for certain classes of crimes, the latter of which is very difficult to implement.

and congress won't use its clear authority to adjust this (which, I can't expect they will)

This seems like the most likely answer here; Roberts will kick the responsibility for unraveling this back on Congress, who will, predictably, do fuck-all in either direction.

Generally speaking, the most accurate heuristic I've found for predicting supreme court cases is "what decision will allow Roberts to keep attending beltway dinner parties". So far only the recent abortion ruling has failed that one.

Yep.

That the Supreme Court has swung more conservative in recent years is somewhat hiding the fact that Roberts will tack with the wind but generally keeps both wings of the court from capsizing the boat with a major upheaval ruling.

I genuinely wondered, way back when, why Roberts was made Chief Justice immediately upon his appointment, despite several other sitting Justices having seniority.

This is probably why. Both sides (at the time) could stomach his ascension to the position for exactly this reason.

It's a little bit of SCOTUS trivia but the "Chief Justice" is just a particular seat on the court. Only 3 (of 17) Chief Justices were raised from an Associate and only 5 had ever been an Associate before becoming Chief.

Yeah, the need for Senate Approval at least divorces the decision from any internal court politics, probably for the best.

In theory it doesn't add much prestige compared to getting the seat in the first place. So much of their apparent influence is defined by traditions that they don't care to upend.

Still, it would make sense that you'd want that seat occupied by a relative moderate.

The most important thing is being able to assign the opinion if in the majority.

At some point it is valid to question whether the Constitution is still fulfilling the purposes it was created for as per the pre-amble.

And if the answer is that it isn't, what then? What does that matter, if there's nothing you can do about it?

And if the answer is that it isn't, what then?

The Constitution itself provides an instrumental example - it was completely illegal under the then-extant Article of Confederation, but it turns out you can just do things if there's the political will and organization to do it.

Ironically, this is why I think SCOTUS might be trying to thread a needle here.

If they completely rule against Trump, and he just decides to keep on doing his thing... and Congress declines to respond to that, its a probable fatal blow to their legitimacy.

It is no longer clear to me that many people will freak out if Judges get ignored.

it turns out you can just do things if there's the political will and organization to do it.

That's a very Laconic "if" there. I'd argue that there isn't the political will and organization needed, and that any attempt to build the organization would be crushed well before it could get off the ground.

Easy.

Quoth the Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

I like the word 'whenever' in that context. Its not like you have to wait for a prescribed moment.

But I expect most people aren't so uncomfortable as to really desire that, and certainly the most rational amongst us realize that the cost of such a step would be insanely high, and the risk of something worse replacing it is real and serious.

But I expect most people aren't so uncomfortable as to really desire that, and certainly the most rational amongst us realize that the cost of such a step would be insanely high, and the risk of something worse replacing it is real and serious.

That is addressed in the next sentence.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes

I saw someone make the interesting point that the Amendments Clause simply provides a way to amend the Constitution. We could double down on the Late Republic vibes by adding national plebiscites.

Quoth the Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution occurred near the peak of the "age of the gun," when the nature of warfare was most favorable to the masses versus states. That ended some time ago, and modern first-world governments are effectively rebellion-proof.

If the United States hadn't withdrawn in a hurry from Afghanistan after 20 years of pouring military materiel into it, I might grant that argument.

But as it happens, a bunch of religious zealots with guns won their country back despite the economic and technology imbalance.

This directly implies it is, overall, a contest of wills more than pure technological might.

And I do not think that modern first-world politicians are assassination-proof.

Since, you know, the guy who is currently President came within millimeters of being assassinated about two years ago.

By dude with a gun.

And civilian uprisings have successfully unseated heads of state in Nepal, Madagascar, Bangaladesh, and Sri Lanka.

That's just the past 3 years. I do not think 'first world' governments are qualitatively more secure than the governments of those countries.

The feature that makes a first world government rebellion-resistant is the ability to keep people economically pacified, I'd say.

So I just fundamentally disagree that rebellion can't be achieved under modern constraints.

Whether rebellion can successfully foment a change for the better, I do wonder.

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