site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   3973 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for March 9, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Okay, I keep thinking of things to add, and the mods probably don't appreciate over-editing of comments. The Zelensky thing wasn't as bad as withholding arms shipments to Ukraine that were already approved by Congress. And the withholding of military intelligence to the Ukrainians. Seems like these both led to the Russians pushing and taking Kursk. Trump responded by threatening even more sanctions against Russia, which is even stupider decision making -- how much are more sanctions going to do, and weren't you just talking about lifting sanctions? Better yet, you could have just not halted things unconstitutionally just to give red meat for your base that apparently wants you to be aggressive on Ukraine?

The Congress does not approve arms shipments though. They authorize the President to use allocated money - or, rather, usually the existing stock within the limits of allocated money - to send the shipments, but the actual shipments are entirely within the discretion of the President and Secretary of State. It is entirely constitutional and within President's authority to stop those shipments temporarily or even permanently - there's no demand for the President to spend all the money or any part of it. See for example: https://www.state.gov/bureau-of-political-military-affairs/use-of-presidential-drawdown-authority-for-military-assistance-for-ukraine for reference. If you enjoy this kind of thing, check out the actual text of the FAA, it specifically spells out that the President is the one who makes the determination.

People have taken a habit lately to use "unconstitutional" as a replacement for "anything that anybody does and I don't like" but that word actually has a meaning, and that's not what it means. You may hate what Trump does, and it's completely within your rights to do so, but there's absolutely nothing "unconstitutional" (the Constitution doesn't say much about it in any case) or illegal in his actions. If you're going to criticize him, at least bother to get some facts correct.

In this case, I just defaulted to assuming it was Congressional authority because, you know, “power of the purse.” I’m glad it’s explicitly delegated.

Same. The line

If you're going to criticize him, at least bother to get some facts correct.

was particularly vexing to me. I don't like spreading misinformation, of course, but I would be spending a very long time if I had to check every assumption that I hold. That's where you get to be grateful that people who know more than you can correct you when you're wrong. I promise that I was trying to use "unconstitutional" correctly when I made that post.

I see. I was not aware of this. My apologies. Yes, still a shockingly bad decision, but not unconstitutional (in this case).

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