site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   34875 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So a few days ago, Trump signed an order to reign in the administrative branch back to the presidency. I wasn't even aware of it until I saw a ton of my liberal friends sharing it and acting like it was the end of the world, a takeover. So far reading it, seems fairly normal. The President is asserting his power over his own executive branch. Here is the link, and some key points from it:

The Order notes that Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests all executive power in the President, meaning that all executive branch officials and employees are subject to his supervision. Therefore, because all executive power is vested in the President, all agencies must: (1) submit draft regulations for White House review—with no carve-out for so-called independent agencies, except for the monetary policy functions of the Federal Reserve; and (2) consult with the White House on their priorities and strategic plans, and the White House will set their performance standards. The Office of Management and Budget will adjust so-called independent agencies’ apportionments to ensure tax dollars are spent wisely. The President and the Attorney General (subject to the President’s supervision and control) will interpret the law for the executive branch, instead of having separate agencies adopt conflicting interpretations.

Again, it's a change from how things are done, but seems fair to me. I suppose a lot depends on what exactly "independent agencies" are, and if that means they can straight up challenge the President when it comes to policy decisions. If these agencies are technically under the executive branch, I don't see how that could be constitutional.

The rest of this link seems mostly fluff, but in the first section here they call out specific agencies:

REINING IN INDEPENDENT AGENCIES: So-called independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have exercised enormous power over the American people without Presidential oversight.

These agencies issue rules and regulations that cost billions of dollars and implicate some of the most controversial policy matters, and they do so without the review of the democratically elected President. They also spend American tax dollars and set priorities without consulting the President, while setting their own performance standards. Now they will no longer impose rules on the American people without oversight or accountability.

I know the SEC in general has been pretty harsh towards crypto and right leaning companies, not so clear on what the FTC and FCC have done to earn the ire of the President.

Overall, I'm very curious to see how this shakes out. Anyone with a better understanding of law than me here that can shed light on what an independent agency actually is?

Office of Management and Budget will adjust so-called independent agencies’ apportionments to ensure tax dollars are spent wisely.

See, this is why I hate this. I support about 80% of this and then they have to throw in a blatantly illegal thing like this. Appropriations are clearly the realm of Congress and the anti-impoundment act has been on the books for a half century at this point. The OMB has no authority to "adjust" appropriated money.

I don't meant to start a flame war about the rest, which seems quite clearly warranted. Just the admixture of this inside that was jarring.

There's a saying in sports: "If you're not cheating, you're not trying hard enough." If people are willing to do incredibly unethical things to alter the outcomes of something that tops out at sports betting, why not politics?

Once you get over the sacred, idealistic form of government, it really is just another ruleset to be gamed. Banging the table and insisting that the Impoundment Act is unconstitutional and doing whatever you want while it winds its way through the courts is just clever brinksmanship. Only the rules that have been formally written down matter: regulations, gentleman's agreements, and norms can be ignored without consequence. Because ultimately what defines legality is how much the institutions are willing to push back against you. If you can get away with it, it becomes precedent.

Sure, but the Impoundment Act is pretty clearly written and very likely constitutional. It's not a regulation or a norm or a gentlemen's agreement.

There's good sense in pushing the boundaries, but at some point it becomes damaging to the rest of your platform.

Sure, but the Impoundment Act is pretty clearly written and very likely constitutional. It's not a regulation or a norm or a gentlemen's agreement.

The truth is, nobody knows if it’s constitutional. It’s something we’ve agreed not talk to about for the past 50 years. We may get the opportunity to find out.

I would wager pretty highly it is, based on the powers in art I.

It’s not some total unknowable mystery even if there is some uncertainty.

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