site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   6814 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 5, 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.

Can we just deport him? And no I am not talking about a Somalian, but Alexander Ovechkin. He just appeared in a Russian political ad. When asked why he did that he replied, “I’m Russian, I support my country”. But here’s the thing the west and to a lesser extent the US is at war with Russia. Undeclared and without ground troops, but we are contributing financing, seized Russian assets, and have and probably still provide intelligence to the Ukrainian side. I think supporting a foreign government at war with America is perfectly fine grounds to deport someone.

The counter argument and I think a reasonable opinion for letting him stay is that cultural exchange makes peace easier. So there are solid grounds for letting him stay. I probably take the opinion that letting him play hockey in the US is better for US foreign policy than deportation.

From a cultural war perspective I would love Trump to deport him and make the lefties who “support Ukraine” make arguments for why Ovechkin in ICE shackles is a bad thing. Meh “free speech”. I did the AI thing and it sounds like he doesn’t have US citizenship but if he did he would make a perfect test case for denaturalization. Declaring yourself to have loyalties to a foreign government at war with the US seems absolutely perfect for denaturalization.

Also, nice culture war on Trump is a Russian agent by deporting a Russian. And it fits with the meme “we need them for the sports ball team”.

He’s just a perfect test case for deportation since his politics are against the US left instead of their Hamas adjacent friends who a broad swath of the left supports.

Yuck. That would possibly be one of the worst things Trump could do for his presidency.

Blatant interference in sports will not be tolerated well. Americans have their bread and circuses. Don't fuck with the circuses. Especially after his war with Iran just made the bread so damn expensive.

Ovechkin is retiring anyways and has said he plans to move back to Russia. Just wait ~6 months and he will be gone.

I came across the article on the sport website of my local team whose owner is extremely liberal and called Ovechkin an awful human being. The bread and circus of sports would still go on and Capitals being in DC you likely have the bulk of the people agreeing Ovechkin is an awful human being.

You can avoid the free speech debate by citing violation of sanctions. Which he did do.

You are likely right it’s a bad idea. But the GOP has newspaper people now. Larry Ellison owns CNN now. And most Americans when they become aware of what he supports probably will agree he’s an awful person.

He may only have 6 months left in his career but it would tarnish his legacy. Getting deported for supporting mass murderer isn’t the last line you want on your Wikipedia page.

But a big reason to do it is to set a precedent for revoking Visas on these grounds and he’s a great case because you probably have 95% support that Russias war is awful and a humanitarian disaster.

But here’s the thing the west and to a lesser extent the US is at war with Russia. Undeclared and without ground troops, but we are contributing financing, seized Russian assets, and have and probably still provide intelligence to the Ukrainian side

Declaring yourself to have loyalties to a foreign government at war with the US seems absolutely perfect for denaturalization.

This is a reasonable argument, except for Russia not being at war with the US. It is a meaningful distinction. You're free to consider the Ukraine conflict a proxy war between Russia and "The West", however objectively it's a war between Russia and Ukraine, which is not even a NATO or a EU member (indeed, precluding its ascension to those alliances is the biggest reason for the aggression), with geopolitical, moral, economic and security considerations driving indirect participation from many third parties. There are many messy proxy wars around the globe. The US has no obligation to do what little it's doing for Ukraine, in principle the US could even support Russia to get it over with quicker and split the spoils (Trump's treatment of Denmark and broadly the EU go to show he assigns negligible value to the welfare or goodwill of Our Western Allies, they're mostly chumps to extract value from; Trump also doesn't give a shit about "democracy" or "human rights" and constantly calls dictators like Xi or Kim his friends). It's an unforced choice made by a nation with high optionality.
So, in effect, you're saying that you want it to be illegal to voice opinions about world affairs that are at odds with the current American geopolitical orientation. This is a rather different argument. Should people be deported if they support Palestine, given that Israel is the Greatest Ally? Should citizens be denaturalized? Does this apply only to naturalized US citizens, to the first-generation US-born too, or to Heritage Traitors as well? What's the legal opinion on Myanmar or on the Sudanese Civil War? How do honest Americans stay abreast of the official list of good and bad foreign factions?

Now I don't agree with Ovechkin's likely conformist and opportunistic support for Putin (that said, Putin != SMO, it's illegal to protest SMO in Russia so Ovechkin wouldn't be able to support any peace party anyway), and he's not morally or legally entitled to working in the US, and I don't care for his fate. And if he's not a citizen, your more extreme proposal of denaturalization is moot for such cases. I just welcome you to think through a coherent, legible legal doctrine in which your proposals would stand. It would be somewhat sad for me if MAGA devolved into uncritical ad hoc "Laura Loomer Patriotism" where anyone landing on the shit list of self-appointed guardians of the Right can be fed to the wolves, while the crowd hoots and jeers.

I think supporting a foreign government at war with America is perfectly fine grounds to deport someone.

I think so too. Too bad the last war the US has been involved in was WWII.

If you want to lean on the procedural fairness of the result, your have to actually follow the procedure first. If the government doesn't want to do their part and actually declare war, then they don't get wartime powers.

It’s a Visa. I don’t think we need to have procedural fairness. He’s not one of our people. To me we just don’t like the people you associate with is good enough. There are a host of groups outside the US that actively position themselves against US interests we are not at war with but I don’t want in this country. We don’t need to be fair.

When I first posted I did fail to think thru that Lavrov is sanctioned. So for procedural fairness he would still be in violation of that.

The question really is if it's a can of worms you want to open. Both the main US tribes have some group of well-integrated foreigners that they are cozy with and derive some benefit from, and which has a horse in some conflict the US is tangentially involved in; so far neither has turned this into a political playing ball, but you could easily see a tit-for-tat start where Mamdanicore Democrats and mainstream Republicans deport people over having the wrong stance on Israel/Palestine, which in the end would just leave everyone worse off.

I am honestly fine with a tit for tat you describe. It’s almost like you’re telling me there’s free pussy. One reason I want to deport Ovechkin is to deport a white guy first and then go get all the Hamas supporters.

Mamdani targeting Jews just supports my long term view that getting Jews to vote MAGA at 85% would be great for MAGA. I gladly want their money, IQ wordcell ability, and control of media on my side and aligned with MAGA interests. Turning the median Jew into Stephen Miller (which they are when it’s for Israel) is fine by me.

More deportations is completely fine with me.

If he has violated sanctions, you have grounds to toss him based on laws passed by Congress even without a declaration of war. I would assume that doing a paid endorsement for a sanctioned entity would be a crime, but I'm not an expert on technical sanctions law.

From a cultural war perspective I would love Trump to deport him and make the lefties who “support Ukraine” make arguments for why Ovechkin in ICE shackles is a bad thing.

The problem with this way of thinking is that it assumes progressives are obligated to acknowledge every inconvenient truth and fairly integrate it into a coherent system of beliefs about Trump or conservatives in general. In reality, the opposite is true: they pick a preferred narrative, and then cherrypick facts to support it, while ignoring the facts that don't.

So if Trump did deport a Putin-supporter, then the left would not begrudgingly acknowledge that Trump isn't as much of a Putin booster as they claimed he was. They'll first try to spin it in a different way to make Trump look bad (“Trump doesn't just hate brown people, he hates free speech too!”, “Trump deports star athlete over political speech!” or as a last resort “experts say Ovechkin deportation designed to distract from Trump's own Putin connections”) and if they feel like they can't spin the event to fit their narrative convincingly, they'll just bury the story, and it won't be mentioned at all the next time Trump deports a Mexican felon.

it assumes progressives are obligated to acknowledge every inconvenient truth and fairly integrate it into a coherent system of beliefs about Trump or conservatives in general. In reality, the opposite is true: they pick a preferred narrative, and then cherrypick facts to support it, while ignoring the facts that don't.

This does sound like most progressives to me. It also sounds like most everyone else to me. Do you think progressives are unique in this?

I might be persuaded that elite progressives are more that way than elite conservatives but I'm not sure.

Sure, most people operate this way, with the possible exception of the world's most principled rationalists (read: annoying nerds that have no influence on public debate whatsoever). But saying only that suggests a false balance between the two sides of the political spectrum.

The reality is that progressives control public debate. They control the overwhelming majority of institutions, from news organizations, to multinational corporations, to NGOs, to academia, to the judicial system (up to the Supreme Court perhaps), to websites like Wikipedia and reddit. They gatekeep what news makes it to the front page and stays there to be talked about by normies. They form an implicit coalition to filter out facts that are inconvenient to the progressives, but not to conservatives.

In practical terms that means conservative politicians like Trump have very little incentive to harm people that oppose the goals of the progressive coalition (as Ovechkin seems to do by supporting Russia over Ukraine), even when those actions would theoretically reflect well on Trump, because the progressive coalition will ensure Trump never receives any credit for it.

Yes, thanks, that's the sort of nuance I was hoping someone would delineate.

A lot of the time when I push back here it's not because I disagree but because I want to see the finer structures of someone's thought, to compare notes.

This does sound like most progressives to me. It also sounds like most everyone else to me. Do you think progressives are unique in this?

Uniquely blatant. Most people do that to some degree or other, but most people also feel some discomfort when they do it. There's an unease, a vague awareness that they're doing something wrong, that they're actually losing. To the extent that I think I'm pretty good about that sort of thing, it's because that feeling of unease hits hard, and makes me feel nervous and paranoid, like I've forgotten a project due tomorrow. I suspect something similar affects many of the people who end up on The Motte.

A lot of progressives/leftists seem to just not give a fuck. I think it's partially downstream from the Primacy of Consciousness that fills so much leftist/progressive epistemology. What is reality anyway, man? Reality is in the eye of the beholder, it's all in your head and words anyway, so why not reject your words and assert my own? The more charitable angle is a kind of faith in institutions. Sure, I might not have an answer to your facts, but some professor somewhere does, for sure, and they'll prove me right.

I felt this in the recent kerfuffle over Trump, where Democrats are pretending to believe that Trump unironically asked Iran to blow up San Diego and Los Angeles.

There's no possible logical way to come to this conclusion but it's the approved message.

I support ukraine so I hate to say this, but... Providing purely rhetorical support for an enemy country is perfectly and reasonably within the bounds of free speech. Yes, I know we have the alien & sedition act, but we shouldn't. While it may or may not be technically legal to deport him for this, I feel like as a moral stance we shouldn't.

This kind of morality is why the country is overrun by foreigners unlike any other time in its history.

Thomas Jefferson foresaw this, and warned against it, and yet we still have people clinging to morality that will get them overwhelmed and replaced.

What is your line between rhetoric and action?

He appeared in political ads.

If you had a tape recorded video of him soliciting Russians to join the Russian army is that over the line?

I don’t believe in free speech. It’s not a real thing. Never has been. Never has been in the US. The US has killed people for speech (to clarify mostly referring to things in S America like the 20k dead Chileans).

Edit: he appeared in a commercial with Sergey Lavrov who’s sanctioned by the US. These sanctions include.

U.S. persons (individuals and entities) are generally prohibited from any transactions involving Lavrov or his property/interests in property, unless authorized by a general or specific OFAC license (or otherwise exempt). • This includes making or receiving any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services to, from, or for the benefit of Lavrov.

"It's not a real thing. Never has been."

But it can be approximated. In some times and places it's more real than others.

Sure you allowed to be a gop or democrat that debate a 35 or 40% top income tax regime. You are not allowed to do speech that challenges the regime.

Does his support for Putin actually do anything?

Why would Putin put him in political ads if it didn’t do anything? Why does the US army advertise at US sporting events? Clearly people think sports connected to military is beneficial to military.

My general logic for 'deportability' is "does this person contribute a net positive to the country, or at least not impose an obvious liability."

If we're actively at war with their nation of origin, the possible liability of letting them stay is kind of obvious, if not quite self-evident.

So a foreigner who is mostly collecting handouts and may or may not be engaging in fraud or possibly worse/more violent crimes but is allowing others in their community to do so is higher on my list than a millionaire hockey player.

But all of the above should be on a short leash for any crimes they may partake in, in that regard. (I guess its worth noting that I also am generally down for exiling U.S. citizens for certain classes of crimes, for the same reason!)

I thus can't see Ovechkin as a target in that regard. If he did in fact break some U.S. law then I guess he has to go, but we've sanctioned Russia, not declared war on them, so I don't see that his presence in the ad is actionable by itself.

Of course this falls into my general "celebrities, athletes, actors should SHUT UP about political causes altogether" opinion. The NHL already had its kerfuffle with some players not wanting to wear Pride Jerseys and the players 'won' that exchange it seems the NHL has taken the lesson somewhat to heart.

No,

Unfortunately the "native" people who tirelessly attempt to destroy the country are far worse and far greater in number than a few foreign celebrities running their mouths. And taking a side in a proxy conflict that the US is mostly phoning it in on is the least of our worries.

Yes we need mass deportations and the destruction of foreign tribal blocs. Even more we need the death of all native traitors and enemies. But going after a foreigner who supports his own country, that we are not even technically at war with, who is here on temporary work visa and doesn't show any intention to immigrate, is really not it. We should celebrate foreigners loving their own country, especially if they love their own country enough to go back.

Even more we need the death of all native traitors and enemies.

Who would these be?

Well, don't answer that. Better yet, don't post like that.

There's probably an acceptable effortpost that could be made that argues that some people are traitors and we should execute them, but you need to put effort into it, not just imply that your political enemies should be killed in a free-form rant.

That's such a noncentral part of the entire post that elaborating would be a distraction. In fact it should be emphasized that irregardless of what that group is, the argument is still valid.

If you drop "Also, we should kill my political enemies" into an otherwise acceptable post, that's the part that's going to get modded.

If you remove the foreigners who support foreign interests then they wouldn’t be campaigning for things some silly natives fall for.

Lefty(Bryan Caplan): We should have open borders and let in infinite migrants.

me: many of them support interests against American interests or loyalty to their home country. They will cause problems in domestic US politics

Lefty: our magic dirt will solve this problem. We can give them full political rights.

Bryan Caplan is not a lefty. He is for open borders. He would be happy to get rid of the welfare state as well.

If we're doing political compass memes I feel like Caplan would sit squarely in the far corner of the lib-left quadrant.

Immigration and population replacement is what defines leftism in 2026. He is a blank slatist who believes in magic soil. So it makes him a leftist.

The fact that other leftists would happily line him up against the wall for his heretical beliefs? Well, that's leftism for you.

I do agree that unlike Bernie Sanders, who pivoted hard on immigration to stay relevant, Caplan is a principled leftist. Put him in the useful idiot category.

Immigration and population replacement is what defines leftism in 2026.

No, it's not. It's what defines the obsession of extremely online white supremacists.

Leftists - actual leftists - in American politics are people like Zohran Mamdani, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, or Bernie Sanders. While they're generally pro-immigration, that doesn't really set them apart from left-of-center people more broadly. The definitive aspects of leftist politics:

  • Skepticism of traditional US foreign policy
  • Massive expansion of the welfare and administrative state
  • Reducing the influence of the business/capital-owning class
  • Federal jobs guarantee for people with Master's Degrees

To speak in broad terms, their political core is an ethnically diverse, college-educated cohort with a history of underemployment. This is why, for example, despite a fairly radical agenda overall, their most prominent political goals tend to revolve around shoring up the economic security and political influence of college grads.

So it makes him a leftist.

Bryan Caplan is a libertarian. He's just... actually a libertarian, not "I hate taxes and love guns" libertarian or an embarrassed conservative.

The fact that other leftists would happily line him up against the wall for his heretical beliefs? Well, that's leftism for you.

That's conservatism too, there is always some heretic that needs to be burnt. Some ideological bent, political position, or spiritual disease, that threatens the christian souls of our community!

It must be nice to see everything in a binary black and white partisan position, the one drop rule of political alignment. The 1D political axis truly is the malaise of the soul, the ultimate mindkiller. The devil ever sits on the shoulders of the self righteous.

That's conservatism too, there is always some heretic that needs to be burnt

Clearly, rightist moments have had that failure pattern, the Nazis being the most obvious example.

In the current epoch, the right, being the weaker party, calls for tolerance while the left bays for blood. And so it will go until the shoe is on the other foot. When that time comes, I'll probably become a leftist.

The devil ever sits on the shoulders of the self righteous.

Physician, heal thyself.

Bryan Caplan is not a blank slatist. "Let's Ban Discrimination: A Socratic Dialogue" makes it clear that he at least thinks HBD is "a distinct possibility." More like he believes in indestructible institutions.

The West is great, even shitty people become much more productive when they come here, let's bring as many of them here as possible and let them earn their keep by finding their comparative advantage. Worried they will go on welfare or vote for communism? Let them come without eligibility for welfare or the right to vote.

It's completely delusional (how long did blacks remain slaves, again?), but it's not leftism.

If he wants A and B, but B is impossible, then he is no different than any other supporter of A. He clearly doesn't think of himself as a leftist, and he didn't choose to become one. He just stood still while the Overton window moved to where he was standing.

Glad to hear that he thinks HBD is a "possibility", although how you could be anything other than a fervent believer in HBD in 2026 is puzzling.

I don't think he's a bad guy. He's just wrong about the things that matter, and the things he's right about don't matter.

Caplan is one person I just can’t develop a theory of mind for him. He seems smart. He doesn’t seem to have any interest that would prevent him from understanding this issue since he’s tenured at GMU in their Econ department. And GMU Econ is known for probably being the most intellectually tolerant department in any US university. Garret Jones similarly blogs and writes books for the masses and Garret Jones is fairly racists. All the arguments for why Caplans arguments on immigration are unworkable are probably discussed in the GMU Econ faculty lounge.

I can understand when a Harvard guy plays down some unfortunate truths because Harvard is a political place but GMU is not Harvard.

Caplan is one person I just can’t develop a theory of mind for him

I've tried. The best I can come up with is that he is driven more by contrarianism than anything else. There seems to be almost an aggressive refusal to think through the details of his 'invite the entire world but abolish the welfare state I guess' positions. Every post on his blog where he visits another country ends with him saying 'this country's successes prove that libertarianism plus open borders is great' or 'this country's failures prove that it should embrace libertarianism plus open borders' and then ignoring the dozens of commenters pointing out how this wouldn't work and him ignoring them.

Overton window moved. That makes him a lefty today. Maybe that makes him more of a homeless person now. The number 1 position he advocates for is a lefty position today.

No, that's not enough to make him a lefty. It makes him just a liberal, though right-liberal, and the right is moving away from liberalism, albeit still split. The left are mostly not liberals - in fact have not been liberals for longer - and don't want him.

There is no 'liberal' or 'classical liberal' position in history that includes open borders. As he justifies it, it's more of an extreme libertarian belief, and hardline libertarians have always been politically homeless from the moment they diverged from right-liberalism (which included freedom of the individual, but also the common good of the nation and the maintenance of tradition through non-governmental means). I believe Caplan would also describe himself as a libertarian.

Fine call him homeless. We don’t want him either.

Though would be noted his primary position “open borders” has strong support in the most activist left circles.

"I totally support this thing that has happened before, is likely happening now, and some people want to increase to a horrendous degree. I also support this thing that has never happened before and the last time someone tried it got struck down by a judge despite being passed with nearly 60% of the votes."

You'll excuse me if I no longer give people like Caplan the benefit of the doubt.

Speaking as someone who called himself a libertarian for 20 years, the logic was always:

  1. Open Borders
  2. Welfare State
  3. Functional Economy.

Pick two. Option number 2 is essentially non-negotiable at this point, and absolutely no one has even the faintest glimmer of a fantasy of a plan to actually address it, which means adding option 1 necessarily closes off option 3. Any libertarian failing to grasp this, at this point, is just a retard or engaged in enemy action.

The saddest moment in any serious, intelligent Libertarian's life is realizing they do not live in a world with zeppelins and talking monkies.

The more common term for a serious, intelligent Libertarian for the last decade-plus has been "neoreactionary". Mr. Caplan is certainly intelligent.

Infinite migrants support lefty causes irregardless of relation to their home country

Fixing something “We should love foreigners loving the own country……who live in their own country”

We are at war with Russia. The war has likely majority support on both sides of the aisle.

“I don’t want foreigners aiding our enemies we are at war with having access to US labor markets” should not be a controversial take.

His wages are essentially an export. I don’t want his salary likely 10 million a year going to the Russian economy. All that revenue would go to an American or Canadian who loves America if we deported him.

And yes I support deporting all the tribal blocs that act in their own interests and for their home countries interests. Ovechkin is an example of the rich and powerful so symbolically is a great person to make example of for when we deporting a 100k Somalian fraudsters.

How is this any different than a member of ISIS doing fundraising and recruiting soldiers to the cause? I don’t support giving that person a US visa.

Someone else mentioned brain drain often benefiting the US. To clue it would be extremely idiotic to have a brilliant Iranian nuclear engineer working in the US who is loyal to the Iranian regime. We should not let that person into the country.

We are not at war with Russia. We are at war with Iran, but not Russia.

Even more we need the death of all native traitors and enemies.

One might wonder at how far this sentiment will be extended.

I suppose that if the long-prophesied Civil War 2 becomes a reality, I might have a interesting time trying to evade being gulaged by left-wingers for not being a left-winger and evade being Pinochet'd by right-wingers for not being a right-winger.

Luckily for me, years of participating in online politics discussions have given me the ability to convincingly pretend to be either a left-winger or a right-winger. A skill that could prove useful in such a scenario.

It would be better if I could just sit back and watch the left-wingers and the right-wingers fight while I munch on popcorn, but sometimes a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I've seen it; it's not pretty.

First they came for the ________, and I spoke up even though I was not a ________, because I read the rest of the poem!

Really? Was it terrible in Portugal? Chile? Why go straight to Hitler?

It might be ugly, but it's better than the alternative.

Are you literally advocating for the killing of your polirical adversaries? Ot is this the usual hyperbole?

The alternative to

the death of all native traitors and enemies

is the overwhelming and replacement of me, my family, and my people in our homeland. So yes, I would say killing political adversaries is preferable to that. After all, the first and fiercest punishment ought to fall first on the traitor, second on the enemy.

If you want killing political enemies to become less urgent, maybe we can slow down the foreign invasion.

Geopolitically, America gains a lot from the brain drain that draws talented people here from all over the rest of the world. This brain drain both makes America stronger geopolitically and makes other places weaker.

Deporting people who vocally sympathize with their birth countries while still contributing to the US economy could hurt the power of that brain drain.

In Ovechkin's case it probably doesn't matter. He's not really innovating anything that would be economically transformative. But if one started deporting people who sympathize with "back home" left and right, it would start to matter.

Now, does the average American benefit from the brain drain? Maybe not -- one could argue that the average American is hurt by it at least as much as helped. However, the average American also doesn't benefit from the US-Russia conflict, so for the average American, there is also no actual good reason to deport Ovechkin. It's kind of a wash.

Truth be told, if America got rid of everyone who has ever wished for a foreign power to defeat the US government's foreign policy, we might be looking at a deportation campaign that rivals Trump's wildest border promises. The number of Democrats who consciously or unconsciously hope for US military defeat every time a Republican is running a war and the number of Republicans who consciously or unconsciously hope for a US military defeat every time a Democrat is running a war is colossal. More Democrats than Republicans, I'm sure, since Republicans tend to identify with the military much more frequently.

America is so strong that the vast majority of its wars don't really matter that much. We have the freedom to care more about a war's impact on domestic politics than about whether the war is actually won or lost.

And one of the key tenets of American mass political thought is that when the Other Side is sitting in Washington, our foreign policy is being run by shadowy elites who hate the American people and are just trying to steal our money. But when Our Side is sitting in Washington, our foreign policy is being run by noble crusaders who are trying to spread freedom and democracy.

The counter argument and I think a reasonable opinion for letting him stay is that cultural exchange makes peace easier. So there are solid grounds for letting him stay... He’s just a perfect test case for deportation since his politics are against the US left instead of their Hamas adjacent friends who a broad swath of the left supports.

As far as bullets go, this one is distinctly candy-flavored. I think Ovechkin is a Putinist shithead and I think it would be just and proper for the Caps to drop him, but the strongest argument for not deporting him is that the US has freedom of speech, and that includes the freedom to speak up for loathsome things. If he's providing material support to the Russian government, that's another thing, but if he's just cheerleading for Putin, that's well within his rights.

Prior to the civil rights era new understanding of the first amendment and freedom of speech, when a foreigner was found agitating on behalf of another country (who wasn't a diplomat of some sort), deportation was the least extreme form of punishment.

This case would seem like exactly what the Logan Act was created to address.

That being said the one group that should probably be against any punishment would be the Jews. Lots of loyalty (and financial support) to Israel there. It’s not a problem now because Israel is an ally. But a Democrat POTUS may no longer label them an ally.

Isn't the Logan Act for the other way around, when an American citizen is negotiating on behalf of the United States?

At least in original intent, since it's named for an American man that negotiated with France to end a pseudo-war.

The purpose of the Constitution is to secure the blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and Our Posterity.

Alex isn't included. Free Speech is not for him.

Free speech isn't just the ability to speak, it's also the ability to listen. If you give the government the ability to silence any speaker who isn't a citizen, you're giving the government the ability to control what you hear.

He’s not a US citizen. He’s not being punished for speech. He’s being deported for political campaigning for an enemy state and his stated conduct that he identifies with our enemy.

Loyalty to a foreign enemy state is not the same thing as free speech. Yes you know about his loyalty because he said he’s loyal. This is the same thing as a conspiracy charge where the mob boss only made verbal orders and did not do the thing himself.

I have no problem with foreigners being foreign. My main concern is if he's dropping anchor babies with his Russian wife.

If this were serious, he wouldn't be deported, he'd be interned.

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