site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   11892 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Note the slight of hand in paragraph 6 of the indictment that you quote, emphasis added:

The loan was originated by OVM Financial under a signed Second Home Rider, which required JAMES, as the sole borrower to occupy and use the property as her secondary residence, and prohibited its use as a timesharing or other shared ownership arrangement or agreement that requires her to either rent the property or give any other person any control over the occupancy or use of the property.

I assume it is not in dispute that James did not use the property as a timeshare or other shared ownership arrangement. The critical text does not prohibit James from "renting" the property, it prohibits her from entering into an agreement that requires her to rent it (or to give another control over the occupancy or use of the property). James' behavior is only violation of that paragraph if she went beyond renting and entered into an agreement with her family member that required her to to rent to them or gave the that family member control over the occupancy or use of the property.

Of course, it's also not hard to look up the standard Fannie Mae Second Home Rider which provides, in relevant part:

6. Occupancy. Borrower must occupy and use the Property as Borrower’s second home. Borrower will maintain exclusive control over the occupancy of the Property, including short-term rentals, and will not subject the Property to any timesharing or other shared ownership arrangement or to any rental pool or agreement that requires Borrower either to rent the Property or give a management firm or any other person or entity any control over the occupancy or use of the Property. Borrower will keep the Property available primarily as a residence for Borrower’s personal use and enjoyment for at least one year after the date of this Security Instrument, unless Lender otherwise agrees in writing, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld, or unless extenuating circumstances exist that are beyond Borrower’s control.

Another way the renting may have been legal is if the lender agreed in writing to permit her renting.

(or to give another control over the occupancy or use of the property)

I don't know what the specific rules in New York are like, but my home state draws a clear distinction between the "property owner" and the "legal occupant". The specific phrasing is different but it is very explicitly the legal occupant not the property owner who is considered to "have control over the occupancy or use of the property".

If New York State law follows the same general framework as mine, it is the act of accepting payment that transfers legal occupancy. I've even seen cases where this was a critical point of contention. If the landlord accepts any money goods or services from the tenant after informing the tenant that they were in violation of their lease that provision becomes effectively unenforceable because the tenant is still the legal occupant.

Technically the house in question is in Virginia, but I still see a distinction between the language and your description. I don't think James contests her was the legal occupant of the property, but it's not clear to me that being the legal is the same as having control over the occupancy or use. Like, the legal owner can presumably evict the legal occupant, right? Which would seem to entail control over occupancy. Downstream of that it seems like the property owner could also lawfully restrict the legal occupants use of the property. I've had rental agreements that prohibit using the rented property for commercial purposes, for example.

Like, the legal owner can presumably evict the legal occupant, right?

Not if they have accepted payment from the tenant. The landlord does not "have control over the occupancy or use of the property" the tenant does. Now the landlord can include provisions against X Y and Z, in the text of their contract/leasing agreement and cite a breach of that agreement (including failure to pay rent) as a reason for revoking the tenant's status as a legal occupant but that is hard to do without an agreement to point to.

Borrower will maintain exclusive control over the occupancy of the Property

What are the squatter's rights laws like in that jurisdiction?

I don't think they apply in a case where the owner is aware of and consents to an individuals occupancy.

if she went beyond renting and entered into an agreement with her family member that required her to to rent to them or gave the that family member control over the occupancy or use of the property.

It may or may not align with case law, but my first reaction to this statement is observing that most states have laws on the books controlling when and how landlords renting dwellings can re-establish control of unit occupancy and use. "I have to wait several months to evict my current tenants" seems to imply that someone else has "control over the occupancy or use of the property".

For the purposes of the law in question, the prohibition on giving a third part control over the user's occupancy goes hand in hand with the prohibition on agreements that require the property to be rented out. The big issue with the "second home as investment property" fraud was people buying beach houses and the like and saying that they're second homes when they're really investment properties. One of the surest signs of this is when they contract the business end out to a rental company that markets the property, arranges the rentals, collects the money, provides a cleaning service, and does all the other things that the true owner of a non-investment second home wouldn't do. The second home policy explicitly allows for leases, though, the idea being that an owner who occasionally used the property would also occasionally lease it out when they weren't there. If they're handling this business themselves, it's likely they're doing it in good faith. If they hire a management company to do it and are only guaranteed a week a year in the offseason for personal use, then it's almost certainly an investment property.

I am also not familiar with the case law but I would be pretty surprised if the existence of tenant protections meant that every act of renting constituted an agreement that the renter had "control over the occupancy or use of the property." That would functionally make it impossible to rent any second homes issued with conforming loans in states with such protections, which I am skeptical is how this language is understood to operate.

Note the slight of hand in paragraph 6 of the indictment that you quot

Thanks for pointing this out.

I assume it is not in dispute that James did not use the property as a timeshare or other shared ownership arrangement

I would assume that as well.

Borrower will keep the Property available primarily as a residence for Borrower’s personal use and enjoyment for at least one year after the date of this Security Instrument

Feel free to correct me, but it doesn't seem that James ever kept the property "primarily as a residence for Borrower's personal use and enjoyment" or ever intended to do so.

Another way the renting may have been legal is if the lender agreed in writing to permit her renting.

Yes, if she can produce such a writing, I would say that the case is on shaky ground at best.

i suspect such a thing is unlikely to appear because the lender is probably repackaging the mortgages to fannie mae (or something similar) and that likely violates the agreement between this third party and the lender. but it might be possible someone trying to bump their numbers gave a wink to James that she could do this.

Apparently, a blogger may have originally raised the problem with James's loan and he has a write up about the ongoing court case here: https://whitecollarfraud.com/2025/11/18/letitia-jamess-motion-to-dismiss-backfires-her-own-exhibit-proves-the-fraud-she-claims-doesnt-exist/

i suspect such a thing is unlikely to appear because the lender is probably repackaging the mortgages to fannie mae (or something similar) and that likely violates the agreement between this third party and the lender.

If nothing else, it seems like the sort of thing where the lender is unlikely to want to spend time and energy writing up something like this since it makes life more complicated. Besides, I'm pretty sure that the reality of the situation is that when people plan to rent out the property, they don't bother to seek written permission. Rather they, just sign the paperwork and then do whatever they want and nobody cares. (Eventually, if there is an audit, they might have to pay some extra interest retroactively or something.) Just as I am pretty confident that in Trump's situation, it's pretty normal for people to exaggerate when describing their collateral, the bank does an independent appraisal, and perhaps they adjust the loan terms as a result.

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