site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   9769 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 20, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think it's useful to note before getting into any particular details that the Trump admin's record of even securing a grand jury in prosecutions against groups and people they don't like has been extremely poor, yet alone ever getting to a conviction. Whether it be frivolous defamation lawsuits or nakedly politically motivated investigations against someone like Jerome Powell, they keep losing when forced to find or put actual evidence in front of judges and juries. One reason as stated by a top Bondi aide is that finding competent lawyers who are also willing to play MAGA politics over their career prosecution success rates has been quite difficult. Not many want to walk away in 2028 with tons of failed indictments that couldn't even get past a grand jury attached to their name.

Not that it necessarily matters, as FIRE points out

But sometimes, the lawsuit is the punishment. SLAPP suits are weaponized by the wealthy and well-connected to punish speakers with costly litigation, even if the suit is ultimately thrown out. They’re abuses of America’s legal system, and FIRE fights against these violations of our First Amendment rights.

In the same way, just having the federal government use the legal system to smear your name, out private details, and force you to defend yourself is a victory for lawfare wagers.

But let's get into the details anyway.

In brief, the indictment alleges that the SPLC raised money under false pretenses by claiming to fight right-wing extremism, instead funding extremist informants with roughly $3 million dollars of donor money. The informants included members of the KKK and an organizer of the infamous Charlottesville unite the right fiasco.

This is already questionable. The idea that paying for an informant inside of a group to provide you leaks and information that you report on, and even share with law enforcement if it hints at potential criminal behavior counts as "funding" the movement as a form of support is quite a stretch. I doubt they'll find many major donors who consider this to be a fraudulent use of a really small fraction of their money.

It's also really interesting to see some of the blatant social media shills flip from "unite the right was peaceful" (which it was) to "unite the right was a dangerous rally caused by the SPLC!' just because of a single guy unrelated to the informant organizer driving into a crowd. Just peak partisan brain on display.

They allegedly did this using illegal means, creating fictitious cutouts and lying to banks to open phony bank accounts to obscure the flow of funds from the SPLC to their informants.

Now that might actually have some teeth to it, assuming of course that this is actually correct considering ya know, the Trump admin repeatedly failing over and over when having to actually provide evidence for their claims in court against political opponents. But assuming this one is true and they did lie to the banks themselves, then it does seem criminal.

This is already questionable. The idea that paying for an informant inside of a group to provide you leaks and information that you report on, and even share with law enforcement if it hints at potential criminal behavior counts as "funding" the movement as a form of support is quite a stretch.

Ok there is the legal question here, and it kind of looks like they are cooked because lying to banks seems like a very easy thing to prove. But probably more important is the court of public opinion, and what future donors will think. And reading the indictment it really seems very bad, the SPLC was going far beyond just paying informants for information. They were directly funding people who they promised to fight against. They were directly funding behaviors and events they promised to fight against. They were directly funding leadership of organizations they promised to fight against. To the tune of millions of dollars.

Some examples from the indictment:

F-37 was a member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 "Unite the Right" event in Charlottesville, Virginia and attended the event at the direction of the SPLC. F-37 made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC and helped coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees. Between 2015 and 2023, the SPLC secretly paid F-37 more than $270,000.00.

The SPLC billed this as a hate rally, they told their donors they were working against it, and they solicited donations from them on that basis. At the same time they were paying organizers, they were telling people they paid to attend, and they were coordinating transportation to the rally. They told their donors they were working to stop a hate group doing "hate speech" while they directly funded and coordinated with leaders of that group to do that very same thing they promised to stop, with money that they said would be used to stop it!

F-9 was affiliated with the neo-Nazi organization, the National Alliance and served as an F for the SPLC for more than 20 years. F-9's activities included fundraising for the National Alliance. Between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC secretly paid F-9 more than $1,000,000.00.

This is what the SPLC tells its donors about the National Alliance. If the SPLC wanted to dismantle National Alliance why would they give their fundraiser a million dollars? How exactly could donating to a group be considered dismantling that group?

F-42 was the former chairman of the National Alliance. The SPLC website contained an "Extremist File" webpage about F-42 from which the SPLC solicited donations. Between 2016 and 2023, the SPLC secretly paid F-42 more than $140,000.00. This overlapped the time period in which F-42 was featured on the SPLC's "Extremist File" webpage.

Is it honest and ethical to tell your donors you are working to stop this specific person and this specific organization while secretly paying that person, the former leader of that organization, $140,000? While giving their fundraiser (and presumably by extension that group) over $1,000,000? In what sense can the SPLC be said to be working against a man when they are directly funding him and indirectly funding his organization? In what sense is that not just flat out lying?

F-unknown was the Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America. In an article published on November 22, 2013, the SPLC described the group as a "millennial reboot of what was once a serious domestic threat.

F-unknown was a member of the Ku Klux Klan and married to an Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan. F-unknown and their spouse were involved in litigation whereby the Ku Klux Klan applied to take part in the Adopt-a Highway program. During the course of the litigation, known payments were traced from the SPLC to F-unknown which exceeded $3,500.00.

These are the people who set policy, who make decisions, who control the entire organization. In a very direct sense they ARE the organization, more so than anyone else, and the SPLC is giving them, the KKK, the SPLC's biggest bogeyman, hundreds of thousands of dollars and indirectly funding their lawsuits.

The indictment is pretty short so I encourage you to read it if you think I am taking these out of context. This information was not in the OP so maybe you were not aware of it, but does seeing it now does that change your mind at all? If it was just paying informants for information then I agree that the funding allegations would be quite a stretch. But that is not really even close to what was happening here. They were directly coordinating and promoting and facilitating this stuff. It looks much closer to "self licking ice cream cone" than "informants for info".

Some examples from the indictment:

F-37 was a member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 "Unite the Right" event in Charlottesville, Virginia and attended the event at the direction of the SPLC. F-37 made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC and helped coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees. Between 2015 and 2023, the SPLC secretly paid F-37 more than $270,000.00.

That’s disgusting. $30,000 a year for making racist postings and helping to plan and coordinate a rightwing meet-up. How does one get on the radar of organizations for these types of jobs? Just so I know how to avoid such disgusting side gigs.

The SPLC billed this as a hate rally, they told their donors they were working against it, and they solicited donations from them on that basis. At the same time they were paying organizers, they were telling people they paid to attend, and they were coordinating transportation to the rally. They told their donors they were working to stop a hate group doing "hate speech" while they directly funded and coordinated with leaders of that group to do that very same thing they promised to stop, with money that they said would be used to stop it!

This seems to assume that the Charlottesville rally would not have occured had they not been in touch with a single member of the larger group chat behind the rally. Informants have to be higher ups in order to provide solid information, but it's not like they are gods who make all the decisions by themselves for the groups. Helping the informant avoid exposure also seems like a basic concept that doesn't require assuming Charlottesville wouldn't have happened without them.

This is what the SPLC tells its donors about the National Alliance. If the SPLC wanted to dismantle National Alliance why would they give their fundraiser a million dollars? How exactly could donating to a group be considered dismantling that group

Because if you want an informant on the inside to leak you information and stay under cover, financial appeal can help you where moral appeal might not. Just paying people to snitch is not some new concept. It's not something the SPLC has invented, it's been around since the beginning of snitches and is used by law enforcement constantly.

Consider in just the five years from 2012 to to this hearing in 2017 the ATF and DEA alone paid informants almost 260 million.

Since 2012, ATF and DEA paid CIs almost $260 million, with payments largely determined by field agents who did not seek approval or review from headquarters.

the ATF and DEA alone paid informants almost 260 million.

Surely there's a difference between the government doing something, and theoretically being democratically accountable for it, versus an NGO of questionable action and well beyond any form of normal accountability?

Though I'm not sure exactly where I fall on the question being "paying informants creates questionable incentives" versus "NGOs should be more accountable for self-interested and possibly fraudulent behaviors."

I struggle to come up with a more sympathetic NGO where I would find this acceptable. Like... if Worldvision was paying people to have more kids and put them in orphanages, I think we could agree that's perverse and insane.

My fondness for Batman would change significantly if I learned that the Joker was a contractor being paid by Wayne Enterprises in order to justify the costumed crime fighting budget.

If Batman really cared about crime, he’d kill Rick Scott The Joker.

This seems to assume that the Charlottesville rally would not have occured had they not been in touch with a single member of the larger group chat behind the rally. Informants have to be higher ups in order to provide solid information, but it's not like they are gods who make all the decisions by themselves for the groups. Helping the informant avoid exposure also seems like a basic concept that doesn't require assuming Charlottesville wouldn't have happened without them.

That was not my assumption, and I don't see how what I wrote would give you that impression. Can you explain why you are interpreting it that way?

But either way, how exactly would that change anything? My objection, and the DOJ's, is that the SPLC was telling donors that it opposed a white nationalist rally, while in reality they were secretly promoting and helping to facilitate that rally. That the SPLC was not solely responsible for the rally does not mean they didn't spend money they promised would oppose the rally to instead secretly promote and facilitate the rally. Can you explain otherwise? What am I missing?

Likewise with your other two points on informants - can you explain how a high up informant being more useful somehow refutes the fact that the SPLC paid for and promoted and facilitated things they explicitly told their donors they opposed? How does facilitating transport to the rally oppose it? How does paying someone and supervising their racist posts oppose that exact person's racist posting? To be honest I don't see a connection at all, can you point it out for me?

Because if you want an informant on the inside to leak you information and stay under cover, financial appeal can help you where moral appeal might not. Just paying people to snitch is not some new concept. It's not something the SPLC has invented, it's been around since the beginning of snitches and is used by law enforcement constantly.

I agree that paying people to snitch is more effective than not paying people and expecting them to snitch. I agree that getting people to snitch can be an effective way to dismantle an organization. I can even maybe see how giving over a million dollars to a fundraiser for a group you are fighting might make sense, like there is at least something there. But that is not all of what the SPLC is accused of doing, so I am going to ask again - in what sense can the SPLC be said to be working against a man when they are directly funding him and indirectly funding his organization? The SPLC says "here is a bad guy we oppose", the SPLC says "here is the donate button to oppose the bad guy", and then the SPLC goes and gives that money directly to the "bad guy". Huh?

Also not seeing the relevance of law enforcement here. While law enforcement using a technique may be a testament to that technique's effectiveness, it does not follow from that statement that the SPLC should do the same. The SPLC is not a law enforcement agency, and there are a lot of things inherent to law enforcement agencies which are not inherent to the SPLC. Those differences preclude the SPLC from operating in an at all similar manner.

Consider in just the five years from 2012 to to this hearing in 2017 the ATF and DEA alone paid informants almost 260 million.

If you are just trying to convince me that it is effective to pay informants, you don't have to. That was never questioned by me and I apologize if I gave you that impression because we are in agreement on that point. But I am also going to point out that your link really undermines that position. Did read any of it?

Like here is a quote from Rep. Hice:

We’ve got thousands [of confidential informants] who are being paid, and we don’t have any idea the quality of the information they’re providing.

This is not a quote in support of CI programs.

Even looking beyond the contradictions I don't see the relevance of the point and I don't see how this supports anything else you have said. How exactly does a House Oversight Committee reprimanding law enforcement for "inadequate oversight over the CI program" and " fail[ing] to sufficiently review, authorize, and implement controls for CIs’ activities and payments" support your position on the acceptability of the SPLC's informant program? If it is at all applicable, would it not be directionally arguing that what the SPLC did was not acceptable? Actual law enforcement agencies with Congressional oversight clearly have huge issues with their CI program, and given that the SPLC has zero external oversight of any kind should we not be more skeptical of their CI program?

This seems to assume that the Charlottesville rally would not have occured had they not been in touch with a single member of the larger group chat behind the rally.

No, it doesn't. I don't have to assume that a particular supporter was critical to an even to call him a supporter.

Consider in just the five years from 2012 to to this hearing in 2017 the ATF and DEA alone paid informants almost 260 million.

Yeah, glowies are also known for creating situations that would later allow themselves to swoop in, and call themselves heroes.

The idea that paying for an informant inside of a group to provide you leaks and information that you report on, and even share with law enforcement if it hints at potential criminal behavior counts as "funding" the movement as a form of support is quite a stretch.

I think this highlights an interesting difference between some sort of moral intuition because it seems common among SPLC defenders that this is just a nonsense connection, but I don't find it a stretch at all. It strikes me as a perfectly reasonable conclusion! But I don't know how to phrase what that difference in intuition is, exactly.

Now that might actually have some teeth to it

34 felonies. But Alabama's probably not as corrupt and motivated as New York.

I don't think it's that surprising to begin with that they might pay some people tbqh. The SPLC would get leaks somehow after all. and paying people some money to leak information is not a new concept they invented. If you can't make a moral appeal to group insiders, you can often make a financial one.

I agree it's not surprising they pay people.

Your argument proves too much: the Trump administration also had difficulty securing a grand jury in cases where they had video evidence of the crime.

Which case was this? The first thing that came to my mind was a vague recollection of the recent reported paper-bag-of-bribery-sting-cash video, but the suspect there (despite being first appointed to ICE by Obama) was considered "one of the president's top allies" and it was the Trump DoJ that dropped the case.

There was the sandwich guy in DC who threw his food at federal officers and was a found innocent of all charges, and within DC is now regarded as a local folk hero for standing up to the federal government or whatever.

Do you know what the precise charges were? I see news stories saying "assault", which, yeah, he was totally guilty by the dictionary meaning, but laws usually get much more fine-grained than that.

DC does allow juries to convict on a "lesser included offense" when the charge is for a greater offense that necessarily includes the lesser offense, so there's no way for a criminal-friendly or just-stupid DA there to let a criminal walk away free from a misdemeanor assault by mischarging them with felony assault instead.

But it might have mattered to the jury if prosecutors overcharged; jury nullification is so much easier to pull off if the DA pisses off the jury first.

Or ... does DC even define an appropriate level of assault charge? In Texas I think this would be a Class C Misdemeanor Assault, offensive contact without physical injury, but the weakest assault level I can find in DC is "Simple Assault" which requires there to be an attempt "to do injury to the person of another", and it wouldn't be crazy for a jury to decide that a short-range ballistic sandwich just wasn't possibly going to do any injury. Maybe there was no better charge possible than misdemeanor destruction of property, if the mustard stains just wouldn't come out?

(IANAL, IANYL, please don't throw food at anyone anywhere or encourage others to do so, etc.)

That was kind of doomed from the start with a DC jury. In this case they were able to file in Alabama, which should have a more level playing field.

The outsized sway of DC and NY juries on federal law enforcement has seemed like a viable opportunity for reform, but I haven't seen any political operatives (conservative, presumably) actually talking about it.

Grand juries have long been considered incredibly easy to get past, to the point a common joke is that you could even manage it with a ham sandwich. Given that nothing about the system has changed (they're still just made up of ordinary citizens through the jury selection process), the constant failings to convince ordinary people of crime seems to suggest a selection bias. Normal smart prosecutors would never try to indict a ham sandwich anyway so the grand juries never turn them down, similar to how Japan maintains their high conviction rates.

similar to how Japan maintains their high conviction rates.

By treating ‘rights of the accused’ as a suggestion?

Probably in part, but they also don't bring the indictments in Japan to begin with. https://usali.org/comparative-views-of-japanese-criminal-justice/carlos-ghosn-and-japans-99-per-cent-conviction-ratenbsp-examining-japans-criminal-justice-system-from-a-comparative-perspective

In Japan the majority of cases are cleared by prosecutors through the exercise of broad discretion to refrain from bringing any indictment. Unlike plea bargains in the US, the suspect receives no punishment and has no criminal record. Prosecutors decide to indict in fewer than one-third of the referred cases (see here and here for Japanese FY2017 data in English). Some 90% of the cases indicted in district courts result in confessions and guilty pleas, although in Japan these cases still go to trial. The remaining 10% of the indicted cases are contested at trial.

There are some other differences including just weird statistical quirks like that, but being selective in only bringing high confidence cases is a good thing for both efficient use of taxpayer money and minimizing harassment of innocents.

If his characterization of a specific case is correct, none of what you said is relevant. It's perfectly possible that on average things are more or less lime you describe, but people make an exception for Trump.

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