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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Signs point to Donald Trump soon invoking the Insurrection Act (paywalled, but you can get around it with Reader View):
And here's the linked EO they're referencing:
The Insurrection Act of 1807 essentially allows the President to declare martial law by deploying the military to "suppress civil disorder, insurrection, or rebellion".
I still don't think that Trump is going to make a serious attempt at establishing permanent one-party rule. What would be the play, exactly? Declare permanent martial law and then cancel elections in four years? I don't think there's much appetite for that, either with him or with the members of his inner circle. But then again, I also never predicted that he would cut off military aid to Ukraine either, so my predictions have already been wrong once!
It seems like we've had a slight uptick in leftist (or at least anti-Trump) posters lately so I'd be particularly interested in hearing their thoughts.
We can argue whether Trump was joking when he said he wanted to be a dictator, override the constitution, arrest insufficiently loyal Republican congressmen etc. but he did say it. You say "What would be the play?" but the plays have been very publicly called. The points above are all things Trump has said he will do, is doing (or tried to do last time in the case of 3), and has retained the support of the GOP in the country while doing. The case that democracy is safe basically comes down to "Trump would never say a Democratic election victory is fraudulent unless it really was fraudulent." (which is obviously false given his record) and "The guardrails that held in 2020 will still hold after Trump has had spent four years deliberately undermining them." (which is rather optimistic, unless there is a Dem landslide in the 2026 midterms or Trump manages to lose GOP support through some piece of shocking incompetence).
I agree with you that Trump is probably not going to pull the above playbook off by himself, but Musk is clearly extraordinarily competent, and appears to be on board with it. Giving betting odds on how likely all this is to actually happen is hard, because under the most likely scenario there won't be a "mask off" moment that the bet can settle against unless the Democratic candidate wins the 2028 election by more than the margin of Bush v Gore style shenanigans and Vance overturns it anyway.
Globally, presidential autogolpes are the usual failure mode of presidential democracy. From an international perspective, the surprising thing is that it hasn't happened in the US already. (There were close shaves under Lincoln and FDR).
If only. But on a more serious note, it’s been a few weeks. The legitimacy of Orban, Putin and Erdogan rested on real, huge economic growth and improvement in the prosperity of the average American. Trump can’t offer that and couldn’t achieve it even if he wanted to, and his current policies only make it even less likely. The sensibilities of the vast majority of the domestic elite still run contrary to him. He has no substantive personal ideological program.
As I have long said, the only real test is immigration. Trump will be a dictator when he can deport 15 million illegal migrants, by any means necessary, and get away with it. Until then, he is merely playing in a sandbox carefully maintained by those who have constrained the realm of political possibility.
I think the chance of Trump and Musk making a serious attempt to do something like this is about 60% (being deliberately vague about the meaning of serious attempt) and if they my wild-ass guess outcome prediction is:
Unfortunately, the test that matters is the 2028 election, and by the time you get there it is too late. Think about Trump's first term - whichever side wins and gets to write the history, the main thing that gets written about will be the disputed 2020 election. (The pandemic response will be glossed over because the events that happened, in particular the Trump administration being much more Covidian than the MAGA base wanted it to be, don't fit into either side's preferred narrative).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We had a moment where we suspended literal constitutional rights and a large chunk of the populace was pleading for the Government to take whatever action it could to save them including by confining people at home (great for coups!) while Trump was already president and he mostly tweeted.
More options
Context Copy link
Trump’s plan:
As usual these fears don’t make any sense. This is not Rome, invoking the Insurrection Act does not confer Trump the title of Dictator. It wouldn’t expand his power beyond the southern border.
Trump has shitposted that he could use the Insurrection Act to send troops into Blue cities to arrest illegal immigrants. If illegal immigration is legally an "invasion", there is no reason why the power to fight the invaders doesn't extend to anywhere you can find them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’m a hard skeptic here. At least on the version where this is the Literally Hitler moment that the liberals fear.
For one thing, if you were planning on some form of dictatorship, why are you waiting on a report? Firstly, the report isn’t necessary to satisfy a law. There’s no “if homeland security and DOD don’t agree, then it’s illegal,” clause in the insurrection act, in main because neither agency existed in 1807. It doesn’t change whether or not the president can be investigated or charged, we had a Supreme Court ruling specifically stating that official acts are protected. It’s not going to convince anyone who wasn’t on board with the idea before. It’s a waste of time at best.
Second it telegraphs the punch. If you tell the opposition that you plan to use the Insurrection Act, and give them a specific date at which you might do it, planning countermeasures, calling for strikes and work stoppages and blocking buildings becomes easy. Especially if the opposition knows exactly what will be the justification will be. If this is about ICE and immigration, blocking those kinds of things is easy because everyone knows where to block the roads and protest.
I think there’s the possibility that it’s about drawing out the opposition. If you can get stupid kids on campus to be really stupid (and it’s not that hard), you can defund those schools. If you can draw out protesters and get them to do something stupid (also not that hard), you can arrest them to applause. At the same time, doing things like this wears down their will to keep going. Protest is fun for a while, but it’s not something that people with jobs can do at tge drop of a hat for months at a time. So if you if you overwhelm them, have them showing up getting arrested, and so on for months, eventually they run out of steam. Eventually you run out of time, money, and will to keep up for months.
This has been the procedure for his whole 2nd term. Flood the zone with shit. Put feelers out to see what people will tolerate. So what if he telegraphs the punch? Making the opposition flinch (and laughing at them when they do) is half the point. The other half is it gives him options. Nobody panics if things go according to plan, even if the plan is horrifying.
There won't be any Literally Hitler moment (i.e. broad suppression of civil liberties comparable to the Reichstag Fire Decree) because the media landscape is totally different today than it was 100 years ago. Today the playbook is individual opposition buried under a litany of accusations, reports, and kangaroo courts -- too many things to litigate for any Informed Citizen to keep up with, each with a sliver of truth behind them. It will look like a hollowing out of the Democratic party to the point where they run someone like AOC for president. You'll still have your first amendment, you'll still be able to say whatever you want online, and you'll vote for a 2028 Trump ticket of your own free will, never minding that the USA is more like Mexico than ever before.
Mexico is a specific place and as a country is a nearly unique phenomenon- it’s experienced extraordinary economic growth during state failure, it’s staggeringly racist, but like, in a lefty way, it poses a security challenge to its much wealthier neighbor entirely through organized crime, etc etc.
I’m not sure how Trump is going to turn us into Mexico. Brown Argentina(bankrupt, high inflation, incredibly bad populist economics) is a possibility.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think it is most likely about the southern border. The problem with trying to use control of the federal government to bootstrap one-party rule, and especially cancel elections, is that almost none of the infrastructure for carrying out federal elections is under the control of the federal government. In practice "cancel elections" looks something like "send the military/federal LEOs to arrest state officials." I am very skeptical there exist sufficient willing participants in those groups to be able to carry it out. I suspect any attempt to do so would make the George Floyd protests look extremely tame by comparison. To the extent there is a plan to fuck with the 2028 elections I expect it is to attempt Eastman's plan again and have Vance purport to unilaterally declare certain electors invalid.
More options
Context Copy link
He's going to send troops into every home to make sure people are being appropriately appreciative for any help or good news they get. Don't thank your mum for dinner? Prison. Don't thank your co-worker for being the driver in your ride share this week? Prison. He's especially focused on celebrating achievements. Don't stand when someone is behind a podium for any reason? Prison. But don't clap when someone is behind a podium for any reason? Solitary confinement. And if you don't cheer when someone is behind a podium for any reason? Death sentence.
Make America Grateful Again!
More options
Context Copy link
Most seem to be regular contributors whose red line Trump already passed (they don't trust Trump to fix demographics enough to overlook the rest.)
"More than two sides", political compass blabla. What does leftist mean to you? It's easy to object to them from the right (or wherever) e.g. Vance for not raising his children Christian/Catholic (his wife hasn't converted) (cf. him saying "my wife's children" and saying he feels terrible for dragging her to church.)
Personally, I criticize Trump from the industrial and commodity lobby, where he was bad for mining and energy in his first term (Biden was good for O&G, bad for nuclear and mining), wants to increase production (although crude's already around break even for many producers and the last booms and busts ravaged the industry) and ban exports. Lately, I oppose insane rhetoric about Ukraine and may appear to be a fierce defender of Ukraine; but I have 10 year old pro-Crimea comments, prefer Russian culture to American and Ukrainian etc. but I respect the truth and don't lie for position advantages in some great metapolitical crusade.
I said "leftist, or at least anti-Trump". I'm aware they're not identical.
Edited, I'm sorry for expressing myself poorly! That was an actual question. I've not seen anyone advocate for leftist economics nor open boarders in quite a while (at most, someone saying they'd like to immigrate.)
I don't really advocate for leftist economics on here terribly much but as someone who is technically a leftist I take the same approach to open borders that Bernie Sanders used to before the vampire castle got to him - open borders are a tool used by the wealthy to drive down wages and make living conditions for workers much more precarious, because that shifts the balance of power to them (desperate workers are more willing to put up with abuse, low pay, etc).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’ve had decent results tapping the “nothing ever happens” sign, so I guess my predictions look like this.
Putting numbers to these makes me realize how unsure I am. It’s hard to frame the predictions without getting way too detailed.
The long and the short of it is: I expect Trump to take any options that look like a Strong Leader Doing Something. In the absence of a flashpoint, Doing Something means scaling up existing red-state policies, not suspending elections.
It’s easy to see a route which leads to Trumpocracy. That doesn’t mean the route is likely.
More options
Context Copy link
The Insurrection Act does not mean anything about one-party rule, canceling elections, or anything like that. It allows the President to use the military on US soil, but it is not a declaration of martial law.
More options
Context Copy link
Even under martial law, trump is termed out and can’t cancel elections. I think what he wants to do is maximum scissor sanctuary city stuff.
Sending in the army to arrest city bureaucrats for insurrection against the federal government and aiding designated terrorist groups (cartels)? I can definitely see that, because it's something I would do.
Not a chance, unless said city bureaucrats escalate first, with some sort of organized physical resistance. And they won't, because they know Trump WOULD escalate.
Arresting city bureaucrats who are obstructionist in some other way (e.g. "accidentally" letting illegals go after receiving a detainer order) using Federal civilian law enforcement is somewhat more likely, but is still going to require actual defiance.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
99% certain invoking the Insurrection Act with respect to the southern border is purely to get around weird, nonsensical laws that forbid our armed forces from actually protecting the border. Because due to the clown world we all live in, the one thing our armed forces is not allowed to do is defend it's country's borders. It can only destroy things overseas in pointless adventurism. Even these last 2 months, they've had to pussy foot around the issue, having the armed forces only provide logistical support to border patrol. But due to labyrinthine tangles of court precedent, bad (imho) law, and other objectively insane nonsense no other country would ever conceive of tolerating, unless they invoke the insurrection act, the armed forces are not allowed to protect our border.
The structuring of the EO, having these deadlines and having these reports is probably nothing but bureaucratic legal necessity to minimize the chances that some random Hawaiian judge with pull an Uno Reverse, and then the Supreme Court will agree with them on purely procedural grounds.
I'll eat crow (and probably cheer from the roof tops, I can't lie) if Trump uses this as an excuse to start a 1000 Year Trumpenreich. But I'm 99% certain it's just to get around the objectively terrible legal environment for having our army actually defend our country. Because we are apparently insane as a nation.
At this point, sending troops to the Mexican border is kayfabe. The Biden-era problem wasn't that the government wasn't catching illegal immigrants - it was catching them and releasing them because the process for working out what to do with them was slashdotted. If you credibly threaten to speedy-deport the latest wave of border-jumpers, or to throw them in the oubliette while the immigration judges work through the backlog, then they stop coming. Have stopped coming, even.
I mean, that being the case, the report from Homeland Security might come back "Nah, we good" and no insurrection act gets invoked and no troops get deployed.
Unlikely. Trump loves the kayfabe.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah I wouldn't exactly be opposed to it either. Which is how I know it won't happen. Reality is always maximally disappointing.
Nobody will be opposed to it. When the military dictatorship comes, you throw flowers at the victory parade and bake bread for the soldiers, it’s just common sense. You greet a conquering army with welcoming and a suggestion that they quarter troops somewhere else.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Is the play not very straightforwardly that he wants to send the military to the border?
Yeah these Trump hysteria takes are so weird and just discredits the left and Trump opposition.
There are obvious negatives to deploying large amts of troops to the border and in southern states. But let’s debate that, not immediate jump to him suspending elections?
Its so dumb and you just push people away from supporting your side when you’re inevitably wrong, again
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sorry to derail, but same, and while I welcome their presence I'm more than a little bemused at it's implication. All this time we were told that the reason they're leaving is that they were being mistreated, my current conclusion is leaning towards: they were leaving because they felt they're winning, and no longer need us - they're coming back because they're feeling like they're starting to lose.
For me at least I left because I didn't find the issues of the day terribly interesting - "woke bad" was not wrong but it was tiresome especially when woke was already on the downswing.
Now that we live in interesting times again, it's interesting to come on here and see how the people who have been cheering for Trump to come drain the swamp, fix our budget problems, and Make America Great Again react to the actual methods he's using in the supposed pursuit of that goal, and whether they think America is on track towards being made great.
That might be a better way to say what I was thinking: “It’s particularly frustrating to watch people try and claim the moral low ground.”
Americans love an underdog. You can justify extreme tactics as leveling the playing field, and when something doesn’t pan out, you can blame the loss on wreckers. I see the strategy, but I simply find the exercise…frustrating. Unappealing. Tiresome.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It'll be interesting to see what the Motte looks like in 5 years, assuming we survive the AI botspampocalype.
We're on such a razor's edge where I can see us either purity spiraling into QANON land, or being taken over by leftists (either as part of a deliberate activist effort or just because every space seems to move left over time).
On the plus side, we're protected by very good mods. As long as they don't get pissed off and quit, we'll probably be alright. And I suppose we're also protected by our low visibility and importance. Few people stumble upon us. So there's not any real value in ideologically capturing us as opposed to other similar spaces like Reddit or HackerNews.
Probably the biggest risk is just going the way of Slashdot, gradual loss of users and interest over time.
Ah, yes, O'Sullivan's First Law wins again.
More options
Context Copy link
I think the long-form, low-volume nature of much of this forum is probably a turn-off for folks who are used to watching shorts on whatever platform they're using. The other side is that ad hominem attacks aren't really well tolerated here. The fact you can catch a ban for low-effort posting would immediately disqualify much of the net.
I'm not saying the a group of debate nerds can't be compromised. But I agree that the juice here probably isn't worth the squeeze.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In my own case, I'm mostly a lurker here who likes to see a light-over-heat discussion between smart generalists across the political spectrum and extending to well outside the Overton window. I learn so much here, and get a ton of ideas for new books to read or topics to look into.
But I mostly don't comment, because I usually feel out of my depth. I'm a huge believer in the project of the Motte, but it is only in cases where I feel like there is a vacuum of a particular thought that I feel the need to throw my hat into the ring.
I think part of it is that the more heterodox people of the Motte have views forged in fire, and have been forced by necessity to become the best read, most expert exponents of their own ideas due to their having a position that is rare in the rest of society.
Major lurker here. I really appreciate the long-format style and eloquence of posters here, and it is a way a getting in touch with the zeitgeist without having to check the most important news anywhere else. Not to mention, it is one of the few places left in the internet where there is an attempt to engage in meaningful conversation to arrive at the truth, as opposed to bickering and attacking the outgroup. I wish I posted more, but I just don't. There's two main reasons for it:
But that said, I like seeing people who disagree with me arguing so well; some of the posts regarding the game-theory arguments about war and international order have made me see that there's at least a valid reasons (if not enough I think) for Western military interventionism, specially related to Ukraine. And they're very well written; it's not surprising at all there's at least three Substacks from Motte alumni; people here write like they like writing, and I like that.
More options
Context Copy link
Uh... You're like the last person I was thinking of, pretty sure I've seen you around for quite a while.
More options
Context Copy link
I might not agree with you on much, but I think you are a great motter. I was going to say commenter, but it's more than that, it has been obvious to me from almost the first time I read one of your posts that you believe in and appreciate the motte's goals. You should post more.
That applies to a lot of our less frequent posters actually, there are quite a few very insightful lurkers on the motte who should post more. @omw_68 comes to mind and.... Shit, I had another poster I'd spoken to briefly a few weeks ago in mind but now I'm blanking. If you are a lurker and you have interacted with me in the past month, post more.
Thanks . . I try to keep public posting to a minimum. Even on this discussion board, public posting leads to pointless bickering matches with culture warriors. When I get into an argument online, I tend to get so engaged with it that it distracts me from actual, paying work.
I know that Most of What You Read on the Internet is Written by Insane People, of course, but it's always nice when one of the 99%-sane people spends part of their remaining 1% to pop in and confirm.
"Yeah, of course I'm not writing much on discussion forums. I decided to prioritize employment and family and friends and such instead."
It's generally very politely worded, but always wonder if the "I'm just explaining myself" attitude is merely a guise, and the real driving emotion is "I feel sad for you all and wish some of you would take the hint." If so, then thank you very much, but no, I'm sorry, we probably won't.
More options
Context Copy link
Ah shit, you have said that to me before, sorry for dragging you onto the battlefield.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think it just tends to happen every time current events are moving fast and there are a lot of big headlines to talk about. More people wanting to talk politics = bigger chance of some of them having dissenting views.
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t see it. Who thinks they need us? Maybe if the substackers came back. But they’re all happily tilling the CW fields.
No, the temperature has just turned up now that the government is actually doing something.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link