site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   35733 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 3, 2025

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.

On the power of the purse and control of the Treasury.

I’ve seen a few articles and videos going around, referencing and linking or exerpting the various left-wing people (mostly women) on “short video” social media filming themselves crying about how they can’t sleep because they’re up all night with the thoughts of how their children are about to starve because Trump is taking their EBT and Social Security away; followed by a debunking of this — complete with links to/excerpts of the press conference addressing this mistaken view, and how these sorts of domestic benefits are unaffected by any funding halts President Trump has ordered so far — and how these people have worked themselves up due to believing scaremongering from voices on the left. But I’ve come to wonder whether this is just about riling up these sort of easily-misled people… or if it’s about laying groundwork for a fight over the Treasury Department.

I’ve repeatedly held (here and elsewhere), whenever someone has talked about “defunding the left,” that it would actually be very hard to do, because for all that the constitution gives Congress “the power of the purse,” in reality all the checks are actually written and issued by the unelected bureaucrats at Treasury, as seen in every “government shutdown.” So what if Congress orders some left-wing institution defunded… and Treasury just keeps writing the checks anyway? I’ve argued that they can, and maybe even will, just defy Congress, because who can stop them?

Well, on the one hand, we’re seeing that permanent bureaucrats are less “unfireable” than I thought. On the other, we have this tweet from Musk on how independent people at the Treasury act:

The @DOGE team discovered, among other things, that payment approval officers at Treasury were instructed always to approve payments, even to known fraudulent or terrorist groups.

They literally never denied a payment in their entire career.

Not even once.

So, again, what if Treasury officers keep issuing checks after being told to stop? Or, in an alternate scenario that brings things back around to my first paragraph, they start engaging in the sort of malicious compliance we’ve already seen elsewhere (like the “No DEI? Guess we have to stop teaching about the Tuskegee Airmen!” bit)? If they talk about how, since they can’t tell who’s been really fired by Trump and who hasn’t, and thus who they should or shouldn’t issue paychecks to, they’re going to err on the side of caution and halt all federal employees’ paychecks (are ICE agents going to be deporting people for free?). Or how if Trump’s talking about abolishing the IRS, that means they need to put an immediate stop to issuing anyone’s income tax refunds. Or how they’re so confused trying to figure out what is and isn’t funded by Trump’s rushed, poorly-written executive orders, they’re just going to halt all Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, EBT, etc. until things get “straightened out.”

Because what are Trump, Musk, and company going to do, fire them all? Because this is where Scott’s “Bureaucracy Isn't Measured In Bureaucrats” really comes into play. The more people at Treasury you fire, the fewer are left to process and issue all the funds that need issued, the more everyone’s paychecks and Social Security and Medicare and EBT and tax refunds get delayed.

So, will the Treasury #Resist? Can they be reined in, or does their control over the cash spigot so many depend upon give them too much power?

Vaguely relevant:

https://x.com/jneeley78/status/1886394836195922200

Another of the DOGE Six, Gavin Kliger, has a substack and in response to the Wired article wrote a paywalled post titled “Why DOGE” with a $1k a month subscription price ($10k annual). The post is blank.

People online have been getting really upset at how young people are in charge of the treasury as opposed to boomers under Elon's New Order. I have no real opinion but think it's spectacularly based to set up a troll substack like this. Apparently some of them are super talented, one was decrypting the Herculaneum scrolls with AI.

And vaguely related to the above is this Wired story: https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-government-young-engineers/.

The headline is "The Young, Inexperienced Engineers Aiding Elon Musk’s Government Takeover" and it starts by revealing their full names. And it only goes downhill from there.

To me, it's utterly obvious that this is a hit piece. But then I looked at the HN discussion of this story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42910910.

HN is a pretty good proxy for a left-aligned highly-online space and it is remarkable how uniform opinion is there. There's a single top-level comment pointing out that revealing individual's names like this is out of the ordinary but the rest of the opinions seem to range from (paraphrasing) "these people are idiots for listening to Elon" to "these people are traitors" (and need to be hanged?).

How long do you think this tension is going to last? Is Elon going to just continue doing his thing (and actually get something done?) and will people calm down or will he get reined in somehow? Or are we in for another tedious four years of pointless shouting?

HN is a pretty good proxy for a left-aligned highly-online space and it is remarkable how uniform opinion is there. There's a single top-level comment pointing out that revealing individual's names like this is out of the ordinary but the rest of the opinions seem to range from (paraphrasing) "these people are idiots for listening to Elon" to "these people are traitors" (and need to be hanged?).

Related: this Hindustan Times piece talks about the responses at /r/WhitePeopleTwitter, which are just the sort of thing one might expect:

The description on the page reads, ‘Muskrat’s DOGE Henchmen have been identified.’ One comment on the page says, ‘Their names?! Drag their fuc*** bodies, cuz. Time to drop the mitts.” Another reads, “I’ll say it. This nazi stooge needs to be shot.” “It’s time to do more than dragging names, let’s drag their necks up by a large coil of rope,” reads one comment. Many other similar remarks have been posted on the page.

The basic problem Trump/Musk have is that trying to defund government agencies you dislike isn't new. Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act to prevent Nixon from doing it, and the Supreme Court upheld it. If Treasury stops sending the checks, which they will imo, they'll just get enjoined and then resume sending them. More details: https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/simulating-doge, he thinks SCOTUS will uphold the Impoundment Control Act if it comes to them and that seems reasonable to me.

The Trump administration seems to be wagering that they can get away with acting illegally and just ignoring injunctions. Given that most of the organs traditionally responsible for holding the executive accountable are either subverted or have effectively abdicated their responsibilities, it seems increasingly likely they're correct.

Sure, but Congress will find it easier to act to "resolve" the conflict.

Much of it is a three piece gambit -- they have to throw the agency into chaos & dysfunction, the Congress has to see that the agency being dysfunctional isn't hurting anything so it is safe to actually reform.

Congress controls the purse, just like you control your own budget. The treasury cannot block payments unilaterally, just like banks cannot do that to you for the same reasons.

The treasury cannot block payments unilaterally

Why not? Who has the ability to stop them if they do?

If Musk has rooted the Fiscal Service, then he has the operational ability to block payments unilaterally, regardless of whether or not that is legal.

I don't know if he is planning to do this (the benign story where Musk only wants read access is also plausible), but I have no doubt that the administration has wargamed at least some scenarios which involve breaking the law and daring anyone to stop them, and refusing to make legally-required payments as a negotiating tactic is something both the Trump organisation and Musk's Twitter used as something close to SOP.

I think it is pretty common for any large entity (not just government) to have separate departments for authorizing payments and making payments. I am pretty sure in my own employer this is exactly how it works. If department or individual X with authority to authorize payments has done so it's not clear why department or individual Y should be second guessing them about whether the payment is permitted. Especially for large and complex operations it's not clear to me how the "department of writing checks" can also be expert in the subject matter of every other department and what they are and aren't authorized to spend money on. The accountability is (properly) located in the entity that authorized the payment, not the department that wrote the check. Blaming the department of check writing would be like blaming my bank for letting me send a bunch of money to gambling platforms.

I posted this in last week's thread about a nearly identical topic that is prescient here:

In constitutional law, it is very clear--the executive branch does not have the authority to stop payments. A entity like DOGE isn't even a part of the government and does not have a right to view classified material. Regardless, this is considered impoundment. There are 3 reasons for this:

  1. Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” President's do not create law, congress does. Withholding funding is considered "Impoundment" by

  2. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 which was upheld via judicial review by

  3. The SCOTUS ruling in Train v. City of New York (1975).

So these actions would go against all 3. The Constitution has not been amended, the law has not been repealed and the supreme court has not seen a case to change that precedent, at least not yet.

This is doubly so for Musk, who isn't even an official part of the government. If Trump wants to change this, he can ask congress to pass a law--republicans are a majority in both houses, or they can try to amend the constitution.

But this is unlawful just like the OMB executive order and for the same reasons. Congress has the power of the purse, not the president.

In constitutional law, it is very clear--the executive branch does not have the authority to stop payments.

And who enforces that?

Plus, I think you've completely misread me. I'm not talking about Trump and/or Musk committing "impoundment," I'm talking about left-wing Treasury employees doing so in order to defy and sabotage Trump.

I think you may be wrong in certain areas. First, DOGE is part of government (read the EO). Second, the president can give info to whoever he wants. Third, the President can certainly stop payments where the authorizing legislation is broad and open ended (eg 50m to foster goodwill in LATAM is not a command to spend xx dollars on a specific project in LATAM)

First, DOGE is part of government (read the EO)

The DOGE created by the executive order is a beefed-up Government digital service, which sits in the EOP, and is headed by a United States DOGE Service Administrator who is an EOP employee reporting directly to the White House Chief of Staff. The job of this DOGE is to co-ordinate the activity of the DOGE teams set up in individual agencies (consisting of agency employees who formally report to the agency head, but have a dotted line to DOGE), with a particular focus on software interoperability. The executive order explicitly doesn't transfer any of the authority of the Office of Management and Budget to DOGE, so as far as I can see DOGE has no authority to block spending.

Even from my mostly Trump-sceptic point of view, DOGE is a good idea, and making Elon Musk the public face of it and giving him some suitable advisory role will make it more effective, as well as making it easier to pull in someone first-class from a private-sector tech company for the crucial full-time role of DOGE Service Administrator.

Elon Musk is not an employee of the EOP reporting to the White House Chief of Staff (and couldn't be while continuing to hold his private-sector jobs), and if the post of United States DOGE Service Administrator has been filled by someone else, this fact has not been publicised. The media is reporting that the people working with Musk on @DOGE are not government employees either, and are mostly still being paid by Musk-owned companies. So the @DOGE that is shutting down USAID and rooting the Fiscal Service is not the DOGE of the EO.

I can't comment on what @DOGE is doing because they aren't saying, but given that USAID and the Fiscal Service were set up by Congress it is probably illegal and definitely irregular.

DOGE itself isn’t shutting anything down they are giving info to the president who then shuts it down.

Here is a curious aspect I started thinking about while trying to find out what is Musk's exact non-position in Trump administration and how can DOGE be not a 'true' department.

When the US constitution was written, it was a given that to rule and execute in any significant capacity, the executive branch would need Departments, with Secretaries to head them, in a physical office, with clerks and other assorted personnel to implement the day-to-day act of ruling. This is the context for legal standard that senate should confirm cabinet nominations.

Inventions like typewriter and telex merely made it possible increase the scale of the federal bureaucracy, but a large-scale bureaucracy was still needed.

With today's technology, Trump apparently can hire Elon and five(?) software engineers as "special government employees" in the Executive office who grep and curl the government computerized logs, payments and whatnot to find out what anyone in the federal bureaucracy have been doing, report back to Elon, who then tweets it or whispers directly to Trump what offices to order shut down in the next round of executive orders. Elon needs only limited formal authority to see the some existing government files. Previously establishing a federal snooping service required establishing a large bureau of investigators with legal authority to physically go and investigate. Panopticon indeed.

Compare and contrast ambassadors, who have been reduced from nearly autonomous representatives in distant foreign countries to people who organize social events and are nominally in charge of local staff who keeps regional chapters of CIA handbook up to date.

You are wrong on #1 and #2: Congressional action is required in order to create new executive branch offices. Presidents cannot do that through executive order per the constitution Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. DOGE was not created by congress and Musk has not been approved by congress. #3 depends, as most funding is earmarked to what organization it goes to.

Specifics matter. If Trump wants to have a new office in the executive branch, he will have to ask congress to create it for him. If he wants Musk to lead it, he will have to get him confirmed, the latter will never happen.

He won't do either one, so it looks like we are headed toward a constitutional crisis.

You mean offices like US AID? That was created by EO. Department level offices cannot be created by EO.

Also BS on the president being restricted on sharing info. Classification and de classification is a power of the president.

You are wrong on both counts and really need to read up a bit on this. It was created by EO, but established as an "independent establishment outside of the State Department by Section 1413 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Division G of P.L. 105-277. So again, this action is another example of executive branch overstep. If they want to get rid of it, fine, but to it legally through congress. Which they have a majority in both chambers mind you.

Since September of 2020, there have been rules to prevent security clearances being given to anyone who has been a lobbyist or have a financial conflict of interest. This has not been done. Musk owns companies that compete with other companies who have government contracts, whereas now he will have unfettered access to their employees information (SSN, address, tax info, etc) along with complete information on government contracts with those competitors.

Hey buddy — you might want to check the date on the law you cited and the date USAID was created.

Also, and? Again the president can choose classification. It doesn’t matter that Biden made rules relating to lobbying.

Maybe it is you who needs to read up.

You didn't read the link. Again--congress made it a separate entity from the State Department years after it was established.

Since congress separated it, the president cannot get rid of it. Congress would have to do that.

You seem to not know how our goverment works. That is fine, but this discussion is pointless until you read up. I recommend starting here

You were and contribute to respond to something I didn’t say. I never made a claim about what Trump could do with respect to closing USAID by EO (that whole can of worms is complex and depends on what is meant by close—suffice to say I think Trump could effectively neuter USAID even if he can’t formally close it).

Instead I pointed out you were wrong to say that an EO cannot create a government office specifically pointing to USAID as an example (this was after I pointed out that you were mistaken to believe DOGE was not part of the government). You then retorted with a law 30 years after JFK created USAID.

So you chided me for things I didn’t say and asked me to read closely while literally ignoring what I said. Maybe slow down and don’t assume what other people mean to say and respond to what they actually said. Also have some humility as you’ve been factually wrong a few times and overstate your legal case.

Congressional action isn't needed to create roles in the Executive Office of the President that are not "Officers of the United States". Musk could do most of what DOGE is doing legally as a Special Assistant to the President, but he isn't one, he is just a private citizen who Trump has told his top political appointees to share information with.

Well, you still haven't actually read the EO.

DOGE is established as a renaming of the US digital service to US DOGE service, with a temporary suborganization called US DOGE Service Temporary Organization with teams of Special Government Employees.

And USDS's new mandate is a Software Modernization Initiative, not technically a budget directive, so the mission of USDS has not changed.

Finally, the president does have authority to share classified info with anyone at any time. The President and only the President is the ultimate classificarion authority (because classification is justified under constitutional provisions for foreign policy, I guess).

Whether this EO gives Elon the right to dismantle USAID is probably subject to controversy, but on the points you are pushing the Trump Admin has already thought of and dismissed your objections.

What the Trump administration is trying to do with this executive order is unlikely to hold up in court. Wether anything is actually paused at that point is another story.

Lets say your interpretation of the EO is correct. It is still illegal for him to be making financial decisions, firing people and unilaterally canceling spending explicitly earmarked by congress.

Firing is likely not illegal and Humphery’s executor ought to be overturned.

Again specifics matter on the financial spending. We cannot blanket say what is or is not illegal.

The @DOGE team discovered, among other things, that payment approval officers at Treasury were instructed always to approve payments, even to known fraudulent or terrorist groups.

They literally never denied a payment in their entire career.

Not even once.

The main job of the US Fiscal Service (the agency of the US Treasury that Musk and his staff have rooted) is to make payments which have been authorised by other parts of the government. Given Musk is tweeting first and asking questions later, what he almost certainly means here is that (for example) when the SSA tells the Fiscal Service who to pay Social Security benefits to retirees, the Fiscal Service doesn't run any additional checks beyond the ones already run by the SSA. In the case of Social Security, this is obviously the right thing to do - the government should be paying Social Security to otherwise-eligible retirees who are suspected terrorists. It's not just a good idea, it's the law. Whether the Fiscal Service should be acting as a second line of defence to deny payment if e.g. the Department of Defence contracts with a local ally who might be a terrorist is a legitimate question about how to organise the government, with "no" being a perfectly reasonable answer.

There are two plausible stories for what is going on here:

  • The benign one is that Musk got read-only access to the database, which he wanted because downloading the entire database of US government disbursements (including payee, date, amount, and source of authorisation) is the easiest way to do what he wants to do with @DOGE (as opposed to the DOGE established by Trump's executive order, which is something else) and the Fiscal Service was the easiest way to get the data.

  • The malign one is that Musk wants to control the Fiscal Service because Musk and/or Trump are planning to cut spending at the bill is paid, not the point where the expense is incurred. (This is consistent with the way Trump ran the Trump organisation until he tanked his credit rating, and is also something Musk did at Twitter). A world where (even if an invoice is approved for payment by the government department who bought the thing) @DOGE is arbitrarily blocking payments because they don't like the politics of the payee is a world where nobody competent will want to contract with the government. And if the same stunt is pulled with Social Security payments, federal payroll, or heaven forfend bond interest, the results are catastrophic. Trump and Musk are reckless enough, and Trump has joked about defaulting on the debt, so I can't rule out the possibility that the plan is to default on the federal debt, and that taking control of the Fiscal Service is the way to forestall a legal challenge.

I can understand that there's arguments that can be made as to why payments would be automatically approved, sure, but then it begs the question: why is the government paying "payment approval officers"? Couldn't the process just assume these are automatically approved? Why is someone in the loop if their job is to pass along paper?

Why is someone in the loop if their job is to pass along paper?

Why indeed. I highly recommend that people on this forum read Musk's biography by Walter Isaacson. I see a lot of people who are confused by what Musk does and it would help them to not be confused.

Musk's whole method of improving systems is to break into the parts of the system that others gloss over.

For example, at Tesla, they bought a machine to do something. The machine is really slow. So Musk asks the guy running the machine why it is so slow. Guy doesn't know. Musk asks for it to be speed up. The guy doesn't know how. So he finds someone who does know. They open up the machine and speed it up +300%. It doesn't work. They dial it down to +200%. Now it works and the throughput is 3x what it was before.

99.9% of people would have treated the machine like a black box. And that's what people are doing here with the government. No one really knows how the government works, even our resident lawyers. It's far too complicated. So they treat it like a black box. Congress appropriates money. The Treasury spends it.

Okay, but like, who, actually spends it? Who signs the checks? Who is the actual person who processes the payment?

I am virtually certain that Musk's process here will uncover a bunch of fraud and waste. And that's why some people are so desperate to stop it.

A world where (even if an invoice is approved for payment by the government department who bought the thing) @DOGE is arbitrarily blocking payments because they don't like the politics of the payee is a world where nobody competent will want to contract with the government.

This very much seems like a win-win for right-wing populists, Trump, and Musk. They all broadly hate the government, so trashing its credibility provides fodder for them to say "Look! See how bad it is!" antics. People will state the obvious that it's particularly bad now because they're trashing it, but they'll just say "Legacy Media lies!" and ignore it.

Did he give any examples of these fraudulent and terrorist transactions?

Musk falsely identified payments made before 20th Jan 2025 to Lutheran Family Services for their work on legal Biden administration refugee resettlement programmes as "these illegal payments", but otherwise no.

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