site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   17277 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.

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 give you: everything you want on the issue

You give me: you promise to follow the law, which you have already promised to do, and which already gives me everything I want on the issue

Wow great, what a deal, sign me up

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.

Oh look, one paragraph later the I am being told that you are just going to ignore the law if you think its unfair.

I give you: everything you want on the issue

You give me: you promise to follow the law, which you have already promised to do, and which already gives me everything I want on the issue

Wow great, what a deal, sign me up

When did the US left promise to enforce immigration law?

Oh look, one paragraph later the I am being told that you are just going to ignore the law if you think its unfair.

The law isn't unfair; what is unfair is suddenly starting to enforce the law after it's been unenforced for decades and people have built their lives around the expectation that it won't be enforced. Enforcing it for new arrivals is entirely fair.

When did the US left promise to enforce immigration law?

That is just the standard assumption for dealing with societies. People are subject to the law, and a law isn't a law if it is not enforced.

What exactly are you trying to argue here?

That if a political faction doesn't explicitly promise to enforce some law it shouldn't have to?

That if a political faction doesn't like the law they can just not enforce the law instead of changing it?

That it is ok to not enforce laws that you don't like?

The law isn't unfair; what is unfair is suddenly starting to enforce the law after it's been unenforced for decades and people have built their lives around the expectation that it won't be enforced. Enforcing it for new arrivals is entirely fair.

We have a process to decide what is and is not fair. We elect representatives, representatives write and pass laws, and then we all agree to be bound by the laws. Do you not agree?

Then why is it fair for your side, the pro immigration side, to just not enforce the law? Why does your side get to selectively enforce the rules? Why do you get to make claims as to what is and isn't fair when you have already ignored what we agreed on?

No one woke up one day and decided to not enforce the law. The law just slowly stopped being enforced over the years, or was never enforced in the first place. As far as I know, this was the case even under W and maybe even previous Republican presidents. Suddenly deciding to start enforcing it after it hadn't been enforced for a long time is a major policy change, and, yes, it is unfair.

No one woke up one day and decided to not enforce the law. The law just slowly stopped being enforced over the years, or was never enforced in the first place. As far as I know, this was the case even under W and maybe even previous Republican presidents.

This is not fair. That it happened over years does not make it fair.

Suddenly deciding to start enforcing it after it hadn't been enforced for a long time is a major policy change, and, yes, it is unfair.

You get to be unfair to me but I don't get to be unfair to you. Nice.

To whom is it unfair? I can see why someone might object to the vast number of illegal immigrants in the US because it is an affront to the rule of law, but whom is their presence actually harming?

You are conflating fairness with harm. If I switch out all of my pawns with queens in our chess game have I harmed you? Is the game fair?

Its unfair to me, as I directly stated, and I have given my reasons as to why. You are asking me to yield to your opinion on fairness, while ignoring and adding qualifiers to what I consider unfair. Why would I do that?

The chess game would be unfair to me, and hence I am harmed in the sense that I am deprived of the enjoyment of the game, which is derived from the fact that both sides have the same starting position and the most skilled person will generally win. I do contend that if something is unfair, it is unfair to someone.

Ok you can contend that, and think what you think, and have the position we should do XY & Z. But I don't agree with you, I want something else. That leaves us at an impasse, because what is going to happen? We can kick him out or keep him, we can't do both.

We solved this problem by collectively agreeing to elect representatives who then write the laws that decide what happens. But it only works if people do what they agreed to do, and trust that the other side will do the same. Consequentially you taking the position that you can do what you think is fair instead of what the law says breaks the system, we are back to our original problem, and now its really hard to solve because your side cannot be trusted to do what they agreed to do.

To argue that "It's the law!" is not the final say is to argue against the rule of law itself. Are you going to do that, argue against the rule of law? No? Then what else is there to say? Either come out and argue against the rule of law explicitly or concede that the law should be followed. But don't sit here and ask for unprincipled exceptions, why would I care?

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