site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   11592 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 3, 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.

The NYT is currently running articles about ICE picking up people overstaying tourist Visas at airports. I read these articles and think yes that is common sense enforcement of our nations laws. And a lot of the people overstaying tourist’s Visas I personally like. Most went thru some vetting to get approved for a tourist’s visas. And they will fill broke our laws.

There is a very good reason to deport people who overstay tourist’s visas. The reason is you want to issue a lot of tourist Visas because you want people to see America and spend money here. And a lot of people want to visit America that get turned down for Visas. Every short term visa should not be permanent residency. The US turns down a large % of tourist Visas they view as high risks. I want to let those people in and I hope they leave after 3 weeks.

Article

Also isn’t it illegal for a lawyer to advise a client on covering up a crime and helping clients break the way? Lawyers seem to be bragging about doing that in the article.

The alternative to not enforcing tourists Visa restrictions is either (1) not issuing tourist Visas or (2) open borders/end of nation state

I think overstaying a tourist visa by a few days due to unforseen circumstances or something should be treated with leniency. But this isn't that:

Many with expired visas occupy a legal gray area, as they are awaiting visa extensions or green cards and have been issued work permits. Such individuals were not prioritized for deportation in the past

... an engineer awaiting a work-visa extension, several newlyweds married to U.S. citizens, and a former au pair.

Get them all.

Agree. And honestly many are probably not bad people who abuse the system so play the “empathy” card. The Twitter algo has been shoving down my throat a 30 year old white Argentinian girl with a bf. Yes as a MAGA person I don’t have a big problem with her staying.

But it’s the NYT labeling enforcing Tourist Visas as not permanent Visas that rubs me the wrong way. It’s mostly their tone we it’s assumed the reader knows this is “obviously a bad thing”.

We have procedures for doing things for a reason. And she only applied for a 6 month tourist Visa not residency. And we did a shorter review of her background for a Visa because it was a contract that she would come visit and leave. It wasn’t an offer of citizenship which if we are offering citizenship we should do a very long review process of her application.

Society does need to have processes that it follows for everything it does. This is just normal process following governance. And NYT tone is basically “Mr. Reader you should clearly understand that enforcing tourist visas to a short visit is clearly proof that Trump is literally Hitler”.

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