site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   3200 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 9, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Let's get this thread rolling with something interesting. I happened to come across this clip on Twitter of a post-midterm interview with Trump, posted by America First Post. I'm just gonna transcribe the whole thing here:

Narrator: Whether it was the message, or the record, the Republican collapse will give Democrats in Congress new powers over budgets, hearings, and subpoenas.

Interviewer: You came out after the midterms, you congratulated the Democrats, you said you were open to working with them. What is one thing you would like to work with a Democratic majority on?

Trump: I'd love to do something on immigration.

Interviewer: What? Do you think immigration hurt you in the midterms? Do you think the crackdown hurt you?

Trump: I think it both helped and hurt. I got an A+ for closing up the border. I get very high marks for getting the bad ones out, but I get hurt because we also took people that had good jobs, that created one violation or breaking of the law and that was that they came into the country illegally. Now, there is a large part of the country that think they should be put out and there is a large part of the country that think they should be allowed to stay if they're good people working in a landscaping company or working in a hotel or doing something right? And in some cases paying taxes. And there's a large group of people think that they should be allowed to stay.

Interviewer: So you think your deportation policy went too far? It was too tough.

Trump: I think it was too tough. I think it might be too tough yea.

Interviewer: What would happen? What does the deal look like with the Democrats?

Trump: Well, the deal would be we would work something out and I think it's something, I think that's something that's actually doable.

Interviewer: Doable to create some kind of legal status for the landscapers and the -?

Trump: Yea. When you go into a hotel and you have a woman that's worked there as a, you know, as a maid, as a cleaner, as a this, as a that, as a waitress, a lot of good things, great jobs, and all of a sudden they're being taken out of the country it's tough. It's a tough thing. But there's a group of people that I would say on the sort of pretty far right that would like everybody to connect.

Interviewer: Do any of those people work in your administration? Are they in the building with us right now?

Trump: No, no. Well, there are a lot of those people. Then there's also people that are more modified on that. In other words get the killers out, get all the rough ones out, get the drug dealers out but let the people that are here, and in some cases here for 10 and 15 years, work a deal for them.

Interviewer: Do you think, the Democratic party right now, has people in it that are interested in this kind of deal?

Trump: I think so, yeah. People have already called me.

Interviewer: So I'll say, I saw James Talarico, the new Democratic senator from Texas. I saw him on Fox News and he said immigration was one of the things he wanted to work with the audience.

Trump: Others too, South Carolina said. Numerous people.

Interviewer: You did, in the course of the campaign, you did occasionally call him Talafreako.

Trump: Yea, I did.

Trump is Trump of course so take everything with a massive grain of salt, especially since he announced Stephen Miller would be taking over as his chief of staff, but this is crazy? Perhaps Trump's "Only Nixon can go to China" moment will be an Eisenhower-esque amnesty for illegals. I have heard other commentators suggest that Trump would be open to adding Puerto Rico and D.C. as states from a self-glorifying kind of way. "President Trump, you could be remembered as the first President to add states to the union since 1950! What a legacy!"

I think what the US needs is a grand bargain between the two sides on immigration: one big amnesty for those already there, obviously excluding criminals, etc., and to then start actually enforcing the law.

I do feel it is unfair that people who've lived in the US for years or decades under the understanding that the law will not be enforced have had the rug pulled out from under them. No, you can't just say "but it's the law!". Imagine a teenager smokes some weed on the understanding that the prohibition is not enforced, and then a tough-on-crime district attorney starts enforcing it and suddenly he's spending a year in jail (the maximum sentence) and will never be able to get a good job. People act differently based on how and whether laws are enforced, and suddenly changing that retroactively is unfair.

I think what the US needs is a grand bargain between the two sides on immigration: one big amnesty for those already there, obviously excluding criminals, etc., and to then start actually enforcing the law.

Reagan did this in 1986. We've fallen short on "actually enforcing the law" since then: do you think another round will go any better?

That would be the bargain: the pro-immigrant side actually agrees to actually enforce the law. This would be a major concession from their side, which is why they would get a total amnesty in return.

I will concede that this does require a degree of good faith that probably doesn't exist in American politics in the current year. Maybe they could enshrine it in the constitution, in a very clear and unambiguous manner to avoid interference from the courts.

actually agrees to actually enforce

These particular "actually"s are indistinguishable from the historical "not actually"s.

So you want me to press "cooperate" on the prisoner's dilemma despite a clear history of one side hitting "defect" basically as hard as possible (see: Biden)?

I'm not even particularly opposed to reasonable levels of immigration and I think that sounds dumb. What could you feasibly offer in return? Mandatory nationwide E-Verify? Residency checks for all hotel and apartment rentals (this is common in other Western nations)? Also bank accounts and transfers? Massive taxes on remittances? Not that any of those are on the table, but would that be enough, even?

Maybe they could enshrine it in the constitution, in a very clear and unambiguous manner to avoid interference from the courts.

That worked out great with "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I contend that you can get much more explicit and unambiguous than that.

There would have to be an enforcement mechanism. Because the left broke the deal so flagrantly last time, they would have to make an additional concession.

A couple possible suggestions:

  1. Social security checks are docked if immigration exceeds a certain amount

  2. 20% tax on remittances plus $100,000 annual fee for H1b with all income generated going to ICE

Because the left broke the deal so flagrantly last time

There was no deal of the kind I'm describing with the Reagan amnesty. At the time, the Republicans were pro-immigration because they thought it was good for business and the Democrats were anti-immigration because they thought it was bad for US workers.

And to be clear, I'm only talking about illegal immigration. Legal immigration is an entirely separate question.

I think pigeonburger is on the money: if a Constitutional amendment plainly stating "shall not be infringed" and multiple Supreme Court rulings establishing common use and historical precedent over many decades don't stop progressives from trying to ban guns, what makes you think you'll be more successful with your dealings?

Guns haven't been banned yet, unlike in most of Europe. The vast majority of states allow you to carry a gun, either open or concealed. For sure it's not perfect, but it's much better than the rest of the world. 2A isn't useless.

If you were to get immigration restrictions passed in such a way that they would actually be followed 90% of the way 90% of the time, you really would have immigration restrictions worthy of the term.

2A has been entirely useless as a formal legal mechanism to protect ownership of guns in America. Multiple victories in the supreme court have proven entirely incapable to overturn gun control or ban laws in Blue-controlled regions. It is true that many places in America allow gun ownership; they do this because Reds won and maintain political control of those areas. Where Blues control, 2A is a dead letter, much like the rest of the Constitution.

You are appealing to a formalism that does not actually exist, and has not existed in living memory. There is no way to get immigration restrictions 90% followed 90% of the time under a Blue-controlled federal government. It does not matter what laws you pass, or even whether you pass a constitutional amendment, were such a thing possible. Blues are not willing to be constrained by law.

More comments

Guns haven't been banned yet, unlike in most of Europe.

The closer to the [American] Anglosphere you are, the worse the gun laws get.

This is because the illiberal/progressive faction in those countries takes their marching orders wholesale from American media and turn them loose on countries that have far less rule of law (NZ -> AUS -> UK -> CAN from least to most restrictive, if you were curious. For the UK, Northern Ireland is a notable exception; I don't think Oranges would tolerate London demanding them disarm.)

Continental Europe is generally more liberal than Anglo countries are; the most liberal countries in Europe were part of the Soviet Union (and arguably because they were part of the Soviet Union).

More comments

Guns haven't been banned due to the concerted efforts of a lot of right-wingers. Enforcing a new deal like that would become a new branch of the conservative movement, best case scenario. Is it possible? Maybe, but they'll make you prove that every step of the way, and you've got a whole load of people who would be legal who weren't before.

You'll notice that no deals are being negotiated with Democrats right now in the gun sphere. There is no "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" arrangement, no suggestion that we repeal the NFA in exchange for universal background checks. Both sides want it all, and why shouldn't they? Neither side trusts the other, and why should they?

I think an inherent weakness here is either trusting that the left won't sidestep your stipulations, or trusting that your design cannot be sidestepped. I have seen enough sidestepping that I would question that either one is possible.

No bargain is actually possible. The left isn't unified enough to be able to offer that. There is enough demand for open borders, or more charitably not being too cruel to illegal immigrants, that the left would, uh, find a way to not live up to an agreement. Amnesty would be giving up territory for no gain whatsoever, just like last time.

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