site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   22065 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.

The model of citizenship you describe is clearly incompatible with birthright citizenship, which involves handing out citizenship to babies of (both legal and illegal) immigrants.

Hasan's parents were, as far as I can tell, legal immigrants and became naturalized citizens (a bit unclear to me if that happened before or after he was born), so opposing birthright citizenship for illegal aliens doesn't really "solve" here. Giving birthright citizenship to the children of citizens is not much, if it all, different than the model you seem to think would be preferable, of being born into an ethnic group.

However, I don't disagree with the criticism. If I was King Of The World, citizenship (and adulthood, for that matter) would likely be earned by deed, not birth.

Describing it as just a piece of paper is simply being honest about the world.

I don't want to live in such a world, nor do I agree that that is an honest description of what citizenship has long been understand to entail in the American tradition, so I decline to follow your lead here.

Hasan's parents were, as far as I can tell, legal immigrants and became naturalized citizens (a bit unclear to me if that happened before or after he was born), so opposing birthright citizenship for illegal aliens doesn't really "solve" here.

I was responding to your model of citizenship as an oath of loyalty. Citizenship can be inherited, but loyalty can't. Hasan is a perfect example of one way the 'pinky swear that you'll consider yourself as an American' doesn't work. The other is that there is nothing stopping a counterfactual immigrant Hasan saying he's a loyal American and then becoming a jihadi anyway. Words are wind. Even if America didn't grant birthright citizenship to the children of illegals, the problem would still exist, as it does everywhere.

I don't want to live in such a world, nor do I agree that that is an honest description of what citizenship has long been understand to entail in the American tradition.

I think it's pretty hard to argue that 'the American tradition' doesn't treat citizenship as a mere piece of paper when it literally gives it to the children of foreign criminals, allows its citizens to hold an unlimited number of other citizenships and doesn't have any substantial requirements to give it out other than 'you've lived here a while'. And that's without getting into the fact that for most of the country's history, it was illegal for citizens of one race to marry citizens (or chattel) of another race. That racialised understanding of the nation is the American tradition. And it is declining at the very same time that the number of Americans who even like America is also declining. I don't think that's unrelated. I think the term 'multi-ethnic nation' is a contradiction in terms.

Words are wind.

And to this point, Hasan did take a specific loyalty oath by virtue of being an officer. But at a certain point this is just a generalized argument against citizenship and even ethnic or kinship bonds. The traditional way of dealing with traitors (ethnic or civic) is to hold them contemptible, not to simply be built different and never have that problem.

I think it's pretty hard to argue that 'the American tradition' doesn't treat citizenship as a mere piece of paper when it literally gives it to the children of foreign criminals, allows its citizens to hold an unlimited number of other citizenships and doesn't have any substantial requirements to give it out other than 'you've lived here a while'.

And if you say citizenship is just a piece of paper, it's hard to argue against this state of affairs.

And that's without getting into the fact that for most of the country's history, it was illegal for citizens of one race to marry citizens (or chattel) of another race. That racialised understanding of the nation is the American tradition.

This is not really true, as a blanket statement; anti-miscegenation laws were never universal throughout the United States.

And it is declining at the very same time that the number of Americans who even like America is also declining.

This isn't true either – if you're going to lecture me about my own history and tradition, please try to get it right.

To speak in very broad terms:

  • Each state had their own peculiarities in terms of how they dealt with Native Americans and blacks. It's certainly true that ethnic feeling was commonplace, but there was never some sort of universal understanding that was codified uniformly into law throughout American history, and (obviously) anti-slavery and, yes, what we might today call anti-racist sentiment was not uncommon in the United States even before it attained nationhood.
  • I think it is wrong to model the halcyon days of Jim Crow racial restrictions as a continuation of unbroken American tradition from time immemorial. It can better be understood as a shifting attempt to control the black (and Native American) population – and in the specific post-Civil-War context of Southern Jim Crow laws, as resentment against the Yankee conquerers. This might seem like splitting hairs, but my point is that there was not (for instance) some a prior first principles deduction that blacks were inferior and so should not be educated; rather there would be a slave rebellion or a perceived problem with runaway slaves forging passes that would lead to bans on slave education. Or (to illustrate with a non-Southern example) black freeman could vote in Pennsylvania until 1838, when the Constitution was revised to specify "white" as the black population in the state and racial tension increased. Thus, from my understanding, it is best to model American racial restrictions as being reactionary instead of foundational. [Edit to add: I would say "often best to model..." – because, to my point, there's not really a one-size-fits-all American tradition here.]
  • To the extent that there is an American tradition of a racialized understanding of citizenship and civic belonging, it has always been contentious, and it went into decline, not now, but rather during the Cold War. I agree that it's not unrelated – the Civil Rights era and Vietnam were a very divisive era in American society in part due to racial issues – but that was decades ago, not some recent development. What America is experiencing now more greatly resembles post-Reconstruction backlash (sentiment towards diversity is cooling, not increasing!) than some sort of terminal decline of ethnic sentiment, although things are different this time around.

I think the term 'multi-ethnic nation' is a contradiction in terms.

Then America, Russia, China, the United Kingdom etc. have never been a "real" nation (and to a large degree, at least in the case of the United States, which I know best, I actually agree with this statement, albeit for somewhat subtler reasons).

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