site banner
PaperclipPerfector  21d ago (text post)   23409 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 29, 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.

Fair enough. Yes there are many good things to like about the US like its (imperfect, but still, extant) meritocracy. Now if only the people of the country would stop trying to prevent others from moving there to achieve the exact same goals and wishes the current population also wants. Regardless, the country still remains genuinely welcoming to others in a way (continental) Europeans are not and have never been.

In anticipation of the 4th of July 250th anniversary I was going to change my flair here to "Benedict Arnold did nothing wrong!", but then I took another look at the current state of the UK and what the US, despite it's flaws, is still like and thought better of it...

  • -11

Now if only the people of the country would stop trying to prevent others from moving there to achieve the exact same goals and wishes the current population also wants.

You can't have a de facto open borders policy that more than half the country disagreed with and not expect tremendous blow back. Biden and crew felt the necessity for workers far outweighed the need for public consent, so they bypassed it and relied on our hijacked institutions to label the dissenters as racist bigots. Now people of the left-leaning sort are coming online and complaining about the severe political correction as if it came out of nowhere.

Did Biden have an open borders policy? My understanding was that the policy was to turn away people trying to enter illegally, and deport them if they entered (recent arrivals, not people with established lives in the US), and there was no surge in the number of illegal immigrants entering and staying long-term.

Edit: I was wrong, see below.

The actual policy was to not enforce any laws, actively decline to find people entering, and help coach illegals through falsifying asylum claims if anyone accidentally did their jobs.

and staying long-term.

Clever wording. By the time Trump was elected, most of the Bidenwave had only been here a couple years at most.

Okay, I looked into it and there was actually an increase in the number of illegal immigrants staying long-term, but this was not due to relaxed enforcement, but due to an increase in the number of people attempting to enter illegally. They actually deported more during Biden's last year in office than in any year of Trump's first term. Regarding asylum:

President Biden issued an executive order that sharply limited asylum which along with Mexico's help led to a decrease in illegal border crossings.

The Wikipedia article Immigration policy of the Biden administration also has some interesting bits:

On June 4, 2024, Biden signed A Proclamation on Securing the Border to shut down the border if illegal crossings reached an average of 2,500 migrants a day in a given week.[15] Migrant encounters subsequently dropped down to 2020 levels.[16][17]

In February 2024 and again in May 2024, Republicans in the Senate blocked a bipartisan border security bill Biden had pushed for to reduce the number of migrants who can claim asylum at the border and provide more money for Customs and Border Protection officials, asylum officers, immigration judges and scanning technology at the border. (...) It was negotiated in a bipartisan manner and initially looked like it had the votes to pass until Donald Trump opposed it, citing that it would boost Biden's reelection chances.

So it seems he tried to curtail the influx, but it was too late.

They actually deported more during Biden's last year in office than in any year of Trump's first term.

No, they didn't. They just fraudulently counted people turned away at the border as "deportations".

So it seems he tried to curtail the influx, but it was too late.

Also viciously disingenuous. That bill was pure poison. Ostensible limitations (which were still high), all of which had "Unless Biden or Mayorkas doesn't want to", when they manifestly didn't want to. It was just shitty, manipulative theater. Like the Proclamation that doesn't actually do anything besides shut down a detention center. It "halted asylum applications", but they were still just doing catch and release.

From the same wiki article:

In response to Biden's order on February 7, 2021, an anonymous ICE official chafed that the Biden administration had "abolished ICE without abolishing ICE [...] The pendulum swing is so extreme. It literally feels like we've gone from the ability to fully enforce our immigration laws to now being told to enforce nothing."[4] Other ICE officials and agents argued that said changes were more dramatic than even Biden promised during his campaign.

No, they didn't. They just fraudulently counted people turned away at the border as "deportations".

Did they not do the same under Trump?

Not so far as I'm aware. Actually border encounters are down over 95%, so there really isn't anything to add to the total of actual "taking people who are here illegally and sending them home" numbers.

I meant during Trump's first term, which was the point of comparison in the article.

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