site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   30637 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 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.

There was a discussion last week about the DOT vs MTA case re congestion pricing and there's an interesting new update. DOJ attorneys intended to upload a letter to the courts to Judge Liman regarding their expectations for documents added to the administrative record.

Unfortunately it appears they made a mistake and accidentally sent an internal letter meant for Erin Hendrixson, the senior trial attorney at the DOT regarding his apparent request for litigation risk in this case and it is quite revealing.

The three DOJ Assistant United States Attorneys internally seem unconvinced that the FHWA (federal highway administration) cancellation by Secretary Duffy is in accordance with law and thus is unlikely to be upheld by the judge.

Here's some choice bits

For the reasons outlined below, it is unlikely that Judge Liman or further courts of review will accept the argument that the CBDTP was not a statutorily authorized "value pricing" pilot under the Value Pricing Pilot Program ("VPPP")

...

It is very unlikely that Judge Liman or further courts of review will uphold the Secretary's decision on the legal grounds articulated in the letter. Defending the case on this basis, with the most likely outcome being vacatur of the Secretary's decision or demand to the agency for further administrative process will only serve to delay FHWA's elimination of the CBDTP.

Moreover, based on a preliminary review of the documents provided for inclusion in the administrative record, it appears that other than the Secretary's decision itself, there is no other material supporting or explaining the DOT's change in position with respect to the two points identified above that would not be subject to deliberative process or attorney-client privileges ... While we would strongly contest any request for extra-record discovery, it is always a possibility in cases where there is very little written justification for an agency's action.

They also highlight an alternative strategy for cancellation since they believe this current one is likely to fail. Instead of termination as a matter of statutory construction, they suggest an attempt at the change-in-position doctrine instead. That method could be a difficult sell too given the above bit about not having much written justification on the matter. The change-in-position doctrine requires a "reasoned explanation" for the decision and must consider "serious reliance issues" of regulated parties and must not be arbitrary or capricious, which would be hard to do with the current lack of written justification for their decision so they'll likely go through the internal decision making process for it first.

It is not possible to perfectly predict the decisions of Judge Liman and the respective agencies, but the internal memo at least suggests the DOT believes it is fighting an uphill battle, one that it is unlikely to win on the current merits. They also haven't sought a preliminary injunction against the MTA yet (explanation here for why the onus is on the DOT)) and the slow response would reflect this internal lack of confidence if they feel they can't reach the bar required for one. Some unrelated legal scholars have also commented on the case suggesting the DOT was unlikely to win and that the fight (if Duffy and Hochul wishes to drag it out) could inevitably end up at the Supreme Court.

Currently at least the MTA seems poised to win the case that this particular attempt was unlawful by the DOT, and in response to this likelyhood it appears the DOT is planning some alternative options it hopes will be more defensible under existing law.

One final note ironically NEPA, the same regulation that ended up with a 4,007 page document (thanks in part to New Jersey's challenges) impeding the implementation of congestion pricing for three years might also kick in with this strategy, forcing a new NEPA analysis by the DOT for termination of the program. Will the villain of the congestion pricing storyline from the early 2020s become its hero in the mid 2020s?

and also evaluate whether a new NEPA analysis is required to assess the environmental impacts of terminating the CBDTP.

Absurd violation of states’ rights. Trump made the smart call on abortion, let states experiment with congestion schemes if they want.

Too late for that. If we're going to switch back to "states rights", it has to be for a Red issue or it doesn't look like "state's rights" but rather "who/whom".

It is a red issue. If congestion pricing is so terrible, NYC will suffer and, as in California with Texas, red states will benefit from an influx of investment and tax revenue.

It seems like a lot of the NYC stuff legitimately can’t be moved, though. Like the economy is based off banks that have to be located in NYC.

Why do they have to be in NYC?

Proximity to the NY Stock Exchange, among others, I'd venture.

Options and futures markets are in Chicago.

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