site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25118 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 27, 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.

On the sqs thread, @Capital_Room had an interesting query, about whether Trump is actually being authoritarian:

Is there anything to this: "The Coup We've Feared Has Already Happened"?

The coup we’ve been fearing has already happened. Utterly servile to Trump, Speaker Mike Johnson refuses to convene the House of Representatives for even pro forma business (and by extension Congress) indefinitely, thereby shielding Trump from all manner of inquiry and accountability, not least the Epstein files, and giving him de facto full dictatorial powers. The longer the shutdown continues, the more irrelevant Congress becomes. Next expect unilateral executive decrees on assuming full funding authority, essentially rendering Congress defunct. It may never reconvene. Suspension of the Constitution cannot be far behind. Dictatorship came to us while we slept.

Is this what it seems like to me — just more lefty pearl-clutching and crying wolf — or is there something to the arguments James Bruno and Tonoccus McClain are making?

Some of the commenters like @MadMonzer offer an interesting response:

That substack is a bad take on it - the best version of the theory I have seen is spread across multiple posts on lawfaremedia.org. But the underlying story is absolutely serious, and as far as I can see it is true. The three-bullet version of the story is

  1. Trump is trying to replace the Congress-driven budget process established by the Constitution with a White House-driven budget process.
  2. Johnson is helping him, and Senate Republicans are not trying to stop him
  3. So far he is succeeding

The slightly longer version is:

  • Trump has, on numerous occasions, refused to spend money appropriated by Congress. Congressional Republicans have not complained. As well as using his partisan majorities in both houses of Congress to pass recissions under the Impoundment Control Act (which can't be filibustered), Trump has used a dubiously-legal pocket recission to cut spending without a Congressional vote. SCOTUS has helped this along by setting up procedural barriers to anyone suing over this.
  • Despite the Republican trifecta, Congress did not pass a budget in FY 2025, and does not appear to be trying to pass a budget in FY 2026. Notably, Johnson has shut the House down rather than trying to make progress on any of the outstanding appropriations bills.
  • Rather than moving a mini-CR to pay the troops (Enough Democrats have said they support this that it would pass both houses of Congress), Trump has paid the troops with a combination of private donations and funds illegally transferred from the military R&D budget. The White House ballroom is another example of using private donations to pay for what should be Congressionally-approved government spending.
  • On the revenue side, Trump has raised a helluvalot of revenue with dubiously-legal tariffs. He also did a deal with Nvidia and AMD where they pay what is in effect a 15% export tax in exchange for Trump waiving controls on advanced chip exports to China. Export taxes are unconstitutional. There has been no attempt to incorporate any of this revenue into a budget passed by Congress.
  • An obvious combination of this type of "deal" and funding specific programs with private donations is to set up a parallel budget where money is raised and spent outside the official Congressional budget process, all backed by more or less soft threats of government coercion. Trump hasn't done this yet, but it is a logical continuation of things he has done.
  • Trump has also claimed in social media posts that he can spend the tariff revenue without Congressional approval.

The claim that Trump and Johnson are trying to change the US budget process to one where (at least as regards discretionary spending - the only changes to entitlement spending have been done in regular order through the OBBBA) Congress does not meaningfully exercise the power of the purse seems to me to be straightforwardly true.

Overall I tend to agree that Trump's admin is acting in authoritarian ways, and even moreso than past administrations. However, it seems to me that the Congressional structure is so broken that, it kind of makes sense?

The way I see it, and the way Trump et al probably sees it, is that the Three Branches as they exist are extremely dysfunctional, and cannot do the actual job of governing the country pretty much at all. This has allowed NGOs and other non-state actors to come in and basically take over by deploying social and cultural capital in key areas, craftily created a sort of secret network of influence, etc.

The only way for us to get out of this morass, the theory goes, is to have a strong executive who basically burns this gridlock down. Though I don't know if Trump's team would want to restore a functioning American government after or just keep an extremely strong executive.

Anyway, I can't say I fully agree with Trump's seeming plan to just destroy jurisprudence for the executive and do whatever he wants, but I admire the sheer boldness. OTOH, I'm also not convinced that the U.S. has more than a 2% chance of meaningfully falling into an authoritarian dictatorship under Trump, or even in the next 10-20 years. Hopefully I don't eat my words!

Trump is pulling a bunch of shenanigans, but they don't seem really different in kind from past shenanigans. The US hasn't passed a full budget since 1997. And that he's got Johnson on board means he's not actually leaving Congress out of it. The tariffs are going through the court system as normal. The Nvidia thing is an interesting reversal of "the power to tax is the power to destroy" (Trump can lawfully forbid the export), and is probably unconstitutional, but the trick is for someone to have standing. But all of this is pretty normal pushing of boundaries, combined with an especially dysfunctional Congress. It's not an overthrow of the system.

What is the bright line for you that would show an actual overthrow of the system?

Use of the federal security agencies to illegally gain partisan political advantage against the opposition seems like a fairly bright line.

Yeah, you make a strong point. I suppose ultimately the 2016 campaign with the FBI covering for Hillary, and then subsequent FBI involvement in the 2020 election and the Covid "misinformation" thing is evidence of utter corruption in our political process.

Nuts that it's all relatively out in the open, and yet half the country seems to not be aware or not care about it. Sigh.

I suppose ultimately the 2016 campaign with the FBI covering for Hillary,

Don't forget illegally spying on her opponents' campaign office. For completely unknowable reasons, including what happened to any intel thus obtained.

For completely unknowable reasons, including what happened to any intel thus obtained.

Wasn't the intelligence put into the PDB and distributed to the Clinton campaign?

I don't think there has ever been any public statement about the results or even purpose of the investigation. It's been acknowledged the FBI lied in order to obtain the warrant to surveil Page, but nothing else.

Of course, this is all going by memory. A cursory search results in lots and lots of whitewashed "fact checks" about how Trump was totally lying about the FBI spying on him; none mention Page. I found a few links purporting to lead to articles on the FISA court's condemnation of the FBI over the Page warrant, but they are all dead.

I found a few links purporting to lead to articles on the FISA court's condemnation of the FBI over the Page warrant, but they are all dead.

Speaking as someone who followed that whole episode closely enough that I once knew the details of why footnote 389 in the IG report meant that the FBI had been lying about when they opened their various investigations against their various targets, my memory of this says that the FISA court, being involved in signing on to an obviously false FISA warrant, played the IG report straight and sent it back to DoJ. The upshot of that was that Brandon Von Grack was removed as a prosecutor from the Flynn case, a new DoJ attorney was appointed, and what do you know, suddenly pretty much every single piece of evidence that Flynn's defense alleged existed and had been seeking, and that the DoJ denied existing, was produced and the DoJ was motioning to dismiss the case. The judge denied the motion, defense sought a writ of mandamus, appeals initially granted the writ but then convened a full panel, which allowed the judge to continue the trial, etc. etc.

Oh, and Kevin Clinesmith, the guy who falsified the CIA's answer that Page was an asset, was fined $100 for his crime.

If that happens, users on this board will immediately defend it as not illegal, not partisan, not an advantage, and not as bad as something that happened in the Hillary campaign.

Consider this a sad, sad prediction.

users on this board will immediately defend it as not illegal, not partisan, not an advantage, and not as bad as something that happened

You can see that right now in the thread where people dig out individual examples of "the other side" having done something as a reason why it's supposedly perfectly fine that Trump does that thing.

Moderator, mod thyself.

What for?

I mean that sincerely. I’ve got a lot of respect for you, but I don’t think I violated any rules.

I'll chime in to say that I do find statements like this

If that happens, users on this board will immediately defend it as not illegal, not partisan, not an advantage, and not as bad as something that happened in the Hillary campaign.

To at the very least be toing the consensus building(negative consensus) line but more importantly just very irritating. if you added a "most" to users then it'd go over the line and without the most it's a kind of limp claim that would be true if two users did that at which point why even make the comment. I dunno, I'm taking it out on your but people have been doing this more recently and it has been contributing to a general rise in heat on the forum.

Probably it's unfair of me to attach different expectations of posting to mods, but I do, and it's always discouraging to read mods generalizing about a Motte Ethos. You'd know the rules better than I.

Alright.

I’m sorry for painting with such a broad brush.

Because you're sniffing your own farts.

Because I have a whole library worth of janny cracks if you're going to start insulting the users. I've been holding back, because I am a well mannered boy, but if you're going to break that gentleman's agreement then I don't have a reason to hold back. I assume that because of this precedent, I can volley back and make predictions about the moderators in general?

For what it's worth, I also don't think you violated any rules.

Do you think he's wrong?

I think whether I agree or not is irrelevant. I often generalize about the ethos of Der Motte in general and suspect by and large I'm not off by far. But maybe I am. Maybe we're all capable of surprising one another. Maybe there's no Motte hivemind, and we're not so very predictable. I'd like to think so. And the best modding I've seen keeps this hope alive.

I don't appreciate you casting such an allegation to everyone here. Recently, magickittycat called me a fascist: what you're doing here is approximately N x (number of users) worse.

It is exactly what would happen on this forum, and if that prediction offends you, you should get off the internet.

If I was offended, you'd know it: I have a medly of mauve, a profusion of plum, a violence of violet for those who get my goat.

I'm tired of limp-wristed passive-aggressive talk from people that should know better. If you have an argument: present an argument. If not, fuck off.

I wouldn't call it offensive, but there's something risible about this being a property specific to this forum, or that the people making the acvusation are exempt from it.

As others pointed out this has already happened in the past, and it was defended in the exact manner it was rescribed... just not by the people some might be thinking about when they originally read the accusation.

It already happened in 2015. By the Obama administration, in conjunction with the Clinton campaign, against the Trump campaign.

It just didn't work. If Trump does something like that in the future, he'll be no worse than Obama in terms of "internal security agency coups".

It has already happened, and other than the last item, they already did.

Now it appears that what Brennan told congressional investigators was false. The current CIA director, John Ratcliffe, who used to be one of the House investigators looking into the Russia matter, has declassified documents from Brennan’s time at the agency which show that, far from keeping the dossier at arm’s reach, Brennan actually forced CIA analysts to use it and overruled the analysts who wanted to leave the dossier out of the Intelligence Community Assessment.

Ratcliffe asked the CIA’s Directorate of Analysis (DA) to review the tradecraft used in producing the assessment. First of all, the DA found what it called “multiple procedural anomalies” in the CIA’s preparation of the assessment. There was “a highly compressed production timeline,” too much “compartmentalization,” and “excessive involvement of agency heads,” which led to “departures from standard practices in the drafting, coordination, and reviewing” of the assessment. Together, all of the “anomalies” “impeded efforts to apply rigorous tradecraft,” the DA concluded.

There was no doubt the FBI wanted to include the dossier in the Intelligence Community Assessment; the CIA self-investigation found that “FBI leadership made it clear that their participation in the assessment hinged on the dossier’s inclusion.” FBI officials “repeatedly pushed” to include the dossier in the assessment.

But career CIA analysts did not want to include the dossier. The CIA’s deputy director for analysis sent Brennan an email saying that including the dossier’s information in any form would threaten “the credibility of the entire document.” That was when Brennan made the decision to overrule his experts. From the CIA’s Directorate of Analysis:

Despite these objections, Brennan showed a preference for narrative consistency over analytical soundness. When confronted with specific flaws in the dossier by the two mission center leaders — one with extensive operational experience and the other with a strong analytic background — he appeared more swayed by the dossier’s general conformity with existing theories than by legitimate tradecraft concerns. Brennan ultimately formalized his position in writing, stating that “my bottomline is that I believe that the information warrants inclusion in the report.” [Bolding mine.]

Director Ratcliffe has also declassified a 2020 House Intelligence Committee report, which the CIA had kept under wraps, that outlined Brennan’s involvement in the dossier. The report, based on the committee’s interviews with CIA staff, said that “two senior CIA officers,” both with extensive Russia experience, “argued with [Brennan] that the dossier should not be included at all in the Intelligence Community Assessment, because it failed to meet basic tradecraft standards, according to a senior officer present at the meeting. The same officer said that [Brennan] refused to remove it, and when confronted with the dossier’s many flaws responded, ‘Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?’”

...For what it's worth, I think your prediction is probably accurate in the sense that you intend it. Buy as I asked last week,

If you wish to argue by appealing to a general principle, what is the proper way to rebut such an argument if one disagrees that the principle is generally held?

Several of the effort-posts I don't have time to write any more are simple surveys of old discussions with links to the evidence answering the questions since. I have a pretty strong impression of how this has gone on balance, but it'd be better to have hard data to make the case.

Several of the effort-posts I don't have time to write any more are simple surveys of old discussions with links to the evidence answering the questions since. I have a pretty strong impression of how this has gone on balance, but it'd be better to have hard data to make the case.

A 'revisiting old questions' series would be an interesting contribution to the Motte, as long as it was done with an eye to parts of previous arguments that were wrong as well as right. It is often worthwhile to re-test old arguments, and if it can't be done without denials or dismissals that too is worth drawing attention to.

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