site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   8154 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 7, 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.

For these reasons and more as an American I support eventually barring dual citizenship, or at the very least barring those who hold dual citizenship from holding office or voting until they formally renounce their other citizenship.

I think as a long term goal it’s one of only a handful of things that will be absolutely required to preserve the American dēmos and citizenship that actually has any meaning.

Do we…not?

I actually thought we required renouncing other citizenships before letting someone naturalize. This was based on an in-law who elected not to do so.

Turns out that might have been a requirement by the German side? They changed their laws in 2024 to allow Americans to become dual citizens, but I can’t find anything about the other direction.

Anyway, it seems like a reasonable requirement. Would probably have some knock-on effects against the people who pursue dual citizenship while staying in the home country; not sure how common they are, or how much they pay in taxes…

Do we…not?

I actually thought we required renouncing other citizenships before letting someone naturalize.

I think there are some words to that effect that you have to recite when getting the citizenship, but no, they're dead letter, and the U.S. is perfectly happy with dual citizenships, as far as I know.

Part of that is the lack of peer conflicts.

When I was reading up on this for an immigration thread, a lot of the citizenship cases were about the rights and obligations of dual citizens when at war with the second country. It was particularly contentious in the Civil War, since we initially flip-flopped on rebellion vs. war.

Yeah, US is weird. The oath is as follows:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

But legally, the US does not force you to give up your previous citizenship:

U.S. law does not require a U.S. citizen to choose between U.S. citizenship and another (foreign) nationality (or nationalities).

it's 100% fine to keep it, and indeed, as I understand it, you have to file formal paperwork and pay a fee to your prior country to de-citizen yourself there, after you've become a US citizen, if you so desire.

you have to file formal paperwork and pay a fee to your prior country to de-citizen yourself there, after you've become a US citizen, if you so desire

Most countries are actually fairly chill about this, and said fee is the usual price of pushing through the paperwork that you have to pay to get literally anything done. Ironically it's the US that's rather strict about it, and hits you with pretty heavy exit taxes, though more countries are starting to talk about implementing something similar.

Yeah -- I didn't mean to imply it was a significant fee, merely an added bit of inertia against denouncing citizenship.

Add barring ownership by dual citizens directly or indirectly of critical industries like semiconductors and military manufacturing, at a minimum. Same if their spouses or children are dual citizens. Compared to a few votes which wouldn't make a difference in many elections.

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