site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   35745 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 31, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I hate researching anything related to Congressional Rules.

The closest thing I could find for standing Rules of the House is this package prepared for the 118th Congress (the previous Congress) which I believe is modified by House Resolution 5, which does not actually contain anything related to Rule 15 clause 2 (which is about discharge petitions). There's also a Congressional Research Service article on discharge petitions. The relevant paragraph here seems to be (c)(1):

(c)(1) A motion to discharge that has been on the calendar for at least seven legislative days (except during the last six days of a session of Congress) shall be privileged only at a time or place, designated by the Speaker, in the legislative schedule within two legislative days after the day on which a Member whose signature appears thereon announces to the House an intention to offer the motion. When such a motion is called up, the House shall proceed to its consideration under this paragraph without intervening motion except one motion to adjourn. Privileged motions to discharge shall have precedence in the order of their entry on the Journal.

The way I have heard this rule interpreted is that the Speaker is required by the Rule to schedule a vote on the motion within the two legislative days. The motion being privileged means no other motions (excluding adjournment) can be considered before the privileged motion is. Anna-Luna announced her intention to offer the motion on Tuesday, so by the Rule Johnson had two legislative days after then to put it to a vote. Arguably, that limit ran out yesterday and they are already in violation of the rule. Ordinarily even a day during a "district work period" (what Johnson declared the week until this coming Monday as) is a "legislative day" even if the House does nothing but adjourn. One might notice, reading H.Res 5, that it amends the rules of the House so that those days are not counted as legislative days for the purposes of certain rules. Ex:

“(c) Each day during a district work period described in paragraph (a) shall not constitute—

...

“(2) a legislative day for purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII;

You can read the full list of exceptions at my link above and while there is a clause mentioning Rule XV, it's specific to clause 7 (Consensus Calendars). Clause 2 on discharge petitions is not mentioned.

The above is all academic, of course. There is no mechanism I'm aware of (short of a motion to vacate the chair) to compel the Speaker to actually follow the rules. Although in some sense all rules exist only by our willingness to abide them. If the House wanted to ignore Johnson's scheduling they could. Interestingly, in the vote on H.Res 282 (the one to get rid of the discharge petition without voting on it) enough Republicans (9) voted Nay on it that they could also get a privileged resolution to declare the chair vacant (kick Johnson out) going. Is this sending a message?

There is no mechanism I'm aware of (short of a motion to vacate the chair) to compel the Speaker to actually follow the rules.

Is it not possible to appeal from the decision of the chair, or some equivalent, in the House?

I believe it is, although in the instant case I'm not sure what that looks like. How do you appeal the Speaker to not scheduling a vote on a motion?

I think when the House moves on to other business, you raise a point of order that this business is not properly before the House until it votes on your privileged matter. If the Speaker refuses, the appeal goes to the full House for a vote.

Since you had a majority for the DC in the first place, this vote presumably goes your way and the other business cannot be done.

I'm not very familiar with House procedure specifically; I just know a bit about general parliamentary law. Wouldn't any member simply be able to make a point of order to take the vote once the parliamentary situation is in breach of the rules? And if the chair then rules the point of order not well taken, then one would appeal.

I hate researching anything related to Congressional Rules.

And yet here we are :-)

The above is all academic, of course. There is no mechanism I'm aware of (short of a motion to vacate the chair) to compel the Speaker to actually follow the rules.

Well both the rules and the Speaker are products of a simple majority vote. A Speaker that doesn't follow the rules and refuses to entertain a point of order to enforce it that would be supported by the majority can be voted out. That's also nice, in that it gives Johnson an out to punt the question to the House more generally where the point of order can be sustained by a majority and the resolution changing the rules passed.

Anyway, I share your view that this is all academic in the sense that the matter will be resolved between the parties, not as a parliamentary point.

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