site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   31199 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026

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.

Everything is no longer fine; the system is breaking; its replacement would only be worse; beware of helping it along.

Agents of the federal government have killed moms, kids, dogs, dads, tampered with evidence, lied, entrapped, falsely accused and stolen for decades. Is this genuinely the last straw for you? Why this? Serious question.

But if you are somebody who feels like you have a fuckin 'don't tread on me' bumper sticker. I don't see how you've suddenly gone from this to supporting a mass militia of the government killing people.

I don't think it's hard to explain this, and since I did half of it above I may as well keep going. I can summarize by quoting David Hines: "This is what you ordered, eat it." [I don't mean you, the poster, to be clear!]

To elaborate a bit: uncharitably, righties and libertarians aren't quite so happy to stop the wheels of the state grinding now that it's finally gotten around to grinding their political foes. More charitably, righties and libertarians understand that "the wheels of the state grinding Group A is fine, but they must stop immediately if they touch Group B" is just a recipe for perpetually being abused if you are Group A.

Note that I am not saying this is the correct response. But I don't think it's hard to understand the game theory of it.

Straw that broke the camel's back maybe?

I had a paragraph that didn't make it in for fear of diluting the point (probably needed a little more editing beyond that but oh well) about parallels with the Vietnam and Nixon era. You had for example Lt. William Calley, who had multiple eyewitnesses to a prominent role in shooting men, women, children, and babies in the My Lai massacre, and large portions of the public wanting him freed (a weird left-right coalition, actually). Which to me is insane, but reflects I think the chaos of the times. But near the end of all that, okay, we have Nixon flagrantly violating the law and lying about his actions and essentially impeached for it.

How did we respond? Did the Democrats say "okay, I guess it's open season on FBI weaponization"? No! We came together and we wrote up some reforms and rules to try and keep the machinations of the government a little more balanced, a little more just, a little better incentive-aligned to stay neutral when it should be neutral. Yet we see the opposite reaction now, to a similar brewing state of unrest. Trump has dismantled the exact same Nixon-era protections all across the board. And so yeah, the administration claiming outright and with a straight face that Good was a domestic terrorist and that Ross has "absolute immunity" is the exact opposite reaction as we want to happen, and conjures up the objectively terrible state of lies and deception and dirty business the military and the spy community was up to in that era. Even with post-Nixon reforms, we still had stuff like Iran-Contra, which should worry anybody; and guess what? Trump's approach to spending and use of the CIA right now mirrors the crux of the matter very closely.

So that's why I say, this is a sign that things are not hyperbolically but literally headed the wrong direction.

Even with post-Nixon reforms, we still had stuff like Iran-Contra, which should worry anybody;

Also Ruby Ridge, the MOVE bombing, Waco siege...

Trump has dismantled the exact same Nixon-era protections all across the board.

Which ones did you specifically have in mind? Why didn't they stop FBI abuses since Nixon?

I think FBI abuses are very difficult to entirely prevent. But the scale is far less. If you've read nearly anything on J Edgar Hoover for example, it will give you a sense of scale. Even at the "worst" of the Biden-era or Trump I-era stuff, they really don't compare at all.

Now some of the problems we've encountered under Trump involve revealed weaknesses in the reforms, but there are a few direct examples of undermining existing reform. A few examples. Here says:

"First, he fired 17 inspectors general, a job established in the Watergate era to ferret out waste, fraud and abuse in government. He also fired the head of the Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency created by legislation in 1978 legislation to protect government whistle-blowers. Then he fired the director of the Office of Government Ethics, created around the same time to guard against financial conflicts of interest by top government officials."

...Take the protections of federal workers from political influence. In the early 1970s, a Nixon aide wrote a secret manual for implanting political loyalists in the federal work force and turning government workers and contracts into tools for Nixon’s re-election campaign. Once revealed, that secret plan became a trigger for the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, meant to further protect the government work force from politics and constrain presidential powers to hire and fire. In both of his terms, Mr. Trump and his aides have been aggressive at expanding his ability to replace more of the federal work force that he derides as the “deep state” aligned against him. Loyalty is a priority. An administration hiring plan issued in May said its goal is to find “only the most talented, capable and patriotic Americans.” One new essay question asks job applicants to identify one or two of Mr. Trump’s executive orders or priorities “that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.”

One provision of the 1978 law established the Office of Special Counsel, which is charged with protecting federal workers from mistreatment, particularly retaliation against whistle-blowers. To assure independence from presidential control, the Special Counsel serves a mandated five-year term and can only be removed “for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” On Feb. 7, Mr. Trump fired the counsel, Hampton Dellinger, without explanation (although he had partly blamed whistle-blowers for his first impeachment).

...After Nixon, attorneys general sought to re-establish the integrity of the department, partly with “contact” rules to keep the White House from meddling in prosecutions. As Attorney General Griffin Bell said in a 1978 speech, “in our form of government there are things that are nonpartisan, and one is the law.” That does not appear to be the vision guiding the current Justice Department. In March, Attorney General Pam Bondi introduced Mr. Trump for an unusual, rally-style speech to Justice Department employees. “We all work for the greatest president in the history of our country,” she said. A month earlier, she had announced in a memo the department’s Weaponization Working Group, a task force established largely to examine investigations of Mr. Trump and his political allies. Her memo said the department would “provide quarterly reports to the White House regarding the progress of the review.” (Goes on to also give the example of a seemingly Trump-mandated investigation into former FBI director Comey, NY AG James, and Senator Schiff)

...The law established the Office of Government Ethics to handle newly mandated financial disclosure requirements for government officials and to detect and resolve conflicts of interest. To assure its independence from politics, office directors were appointed with the consent of the Senate to five-year terms, with the intention that they would bridge administrations. (Talks about Elon Musk concerns)... Days later, Mr. Trump fired the director of the Office of Government Ethics, David Huitema, who was just months into his term. No reason was given, nor does the law require one. He has been replaced by a succession of three part-time acting directors, all White House political appointees with other major administration jobs. When asked what safeguards were in place to handle conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts, a White House spokeswoman, Taylor Rogers, said the news “media’s continued attempts to fabricate conflicts of interest are irresponsible” and that “the president is and always has been motivated solely by what is best for the American people.” Meanwhile, the intermingling of Mr. Trump’s businesses and his presidency has accelerated. Last year, he helped start a family crypto business, World Liberty Financial, with the family of his Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff. Once in office, his administration loosened crypto regulations and pulled back on investigations involving crypto businesses. (Goes on to give examples of CZ Zhao being pardoned only to turn around and help the same crypto business, and the timing of the family memecoin shortly before the election)

Even the right-wing AEI says:

Trump’s challenges to the Watergate reforms are broader, however, than those of previous presidents—he seeks to undo the Watergate framework entirely. Trump removed all IGs at a stroke. He ordered a spending freeze to examine unconstitutional or wasteful appropriations, and he is challenging the Impoundment Act in court. He has reduced agencies, such as USAID and the Education Department, to their bare minimum functions—effectively shuttering them as engines of social change. He is cutting the bureaucracy through buyouts, firings, and transfers. Civil servants who disagree are resigning.

Now the AEI takes the interesting position that destroying Watergate is good, actually, because it devolves responsibility back to Congress "as the Constitution demands", but this seems pretty naive to me. But it's notable that even Trump supporters appear to acknowledge outright that it's happening.

Possibly would have been worth a top-level with some more effort, because I think this is important context to the trend of "zero accountability".

Thank you for the substantive comment. A few thoughts:

Firstly, the excerpts that you listed (and the NYT article as a whole, if you're not reading it closely) gives the impression that the IGs are just disappearing into the void. But I don't think that's true – for instance, Trump fired Phyllis Fong and replaced her with John Walk; Michael Missal was replaced by Cheryl Mason, Thomas Bell was confirmed as the IG for HHS, and it looks like (although I didn't do an exhaustive search) the other IG slots are filled by acting IGs. So while the implication seems to be that Trump is slashing the nation's oversight, it seems that he is replacing personnel. Obviously whether that is good or bad is probably something people will fight over, but it's not the same as just deleting the IG apparatus.

Secondly, it's not clear to me how the whistleblower protection positions are supposed to safeguard from "bad shoots" by ICE, particularly since federal LEOs had quite a few controversial shoots under presidents following Nixon. (It's actually not clear to me they work very well if at all, but I might be overgeneralizing based on an incident I heard about in a personal context once where someone's attempts to reach out were brushed off.) Certainly the problem with the most recent ICE shooting wasn't that someone needed to blow the whistle on it.

Finally, I'm not sure I would characterize it as "naive" to follow the Constitution. It also seems like at least one appeals court (as per the Times) agrees with Trump that he has the legal ability to remove these IGs, at least in some cases, so it's likely not some weird of oddball theory. Instead it is (unless I am mistaken, but this is admittedly a somewhat-informed guess) being done under the theory that the chief executive can, as a matter of Constitutional law, appoint his own officers and Congress has limited ability to stop him from doing so.

I once made a comment about how Trump is taking in one hand the powers that have been slowly ceded to or accumulated by the President and with the other hand seizing the powers that had always been the President's but that had lain dormant for some time under the new arrangements. This seems like an example of that in action.

Hmm, that's an interesting take. For the IGs, I'm not sure if I want to go digging, but I was definitely getting the impression that there was still some substantial weakness going on including vacancies. "Acting" IGs are much less empowered and vacancies matter (reached 75% in October). Also, a few of the IGs were removed while investigating something politically sensitive. And courts literally did find that Trump broke the law in removing many, since giving a reason is required (the fact that the judge didn't reinstate them notwithstanding). In addition, all the offices have received significant budget cuts - doubly worrisome because allegedly the government was trying to eliminate waste and fraud, which sort of exposes the priorities.

More broadly Trump has also elevated people with notable pasts of lawbreaking and unethical behavior to higher posts. One that comes immediately to mind was now-Judge Bove, who multiple very, very reliable witnesses with impeccable credentials alleged had planned to deliberately lie to a judge and illegally evade their orders. You have Homan with the allegations of bribery, you have Noem even caught with 80k unreported donations as governor in a personal cut to herself, etc.

Something I didn't spend enough time on was Hatch act violations. They have become practically the norm. Originally the rules were pretty strict about splitting campaigning activity from official duties, but many Trump cabinet members have practically ignored them quite often, even during Trump I. And they continue, for example blaming Democrats for a government shutdown via multiple official channels.

A lot of liberals get up in arms about the special counsel position stuff. I'm a little torn. On the one hand, I thought the system was reasonable and so were the actions taken. Up to and including packing things up when Trump won re-election, to be clear, and also including the Clinton email stuff. On the other hand, they already changed the law on that once in 1999 because the prior system also had issues.

The overall effect however is a substantial chilling effect on doing stuff about unethical behavior, and removing safeguards to replace them with... nothing, really. That's why I called it naive. Congress is not stepping up to the plate, especially under Republican leadership. But we need fairness and clarity desperately. We only need it more, not less, when people distrust the system!

Sorry I didn't get to reply to this in a more timely fashion.

I'm happy to accept for the sake of argument all of your criticism of Trump, but it's unclear to me how Trump not doing any of that is going to influence an ICE officer who was hired by the Obama administration when he's considering whether or not to shoot someone, any more than the whistleblower safeguards would.

You're laying out a lot of reasonable concerns about the Trump administration's actions, but the one that it seems to me could have prevented the shooting - the straw that broke the camel's back, here - was deciding to not send ICE into Minneapolis. Trump could fire Homan and Noem and go after Hatch Act offenders tomorrow and still send ICE agents into Minneapolis. And of course it's not clear to me that a different President wouldn't have sent ICE agents into Minneapolis.

Based on accounts from Central American women that ICE took into custody, the Southern Poverty Law Center concluded that the January raids “trampled legal rights, subjected mothers and children to terrifying and unnecessary police encounters, and [tore] families apart.” Their report alleges that ICE agents often failed to show warrants or ask for permission before entering the homes of the migrants they sought. At the time of the raids, many of the targets were complying with the rules and regulations set forth by immigration courts, such as wearing electronic ankle bracelets and keeping up with court appointments, according to SPLC’s report. Separate news accounts show that ICE agents picked up young people on their way to school. Against protocol, they even entered “sensitive locations” such as churches, Vice reports.

The effect of these raids on the immigrant community has been well-documented. Kids have been taken out of school. Their families have stopped going out—even to buy food—turning typically bustling immigrant locales into ghost towns, Esther Yu-Hsi Lee at ThinkProgress writes. Even in immigrant-friendly cities like New York, communities are paralyzed with fear.

This was written in 2016 about the Obama administration.

Furthermore, Congress recently voted to increase ICE's budget to accommodate a larger enforcement capability. So it seems to me that the system breakdown that led to this moment was not merely an arbitrary Presidential decision - it was due to our democratic system of government working as advertised. Trump was elected on a strong anti-illegal-immigration platform, Congress, in the course of its Constitutional duty, approved the funds to carry that out, ICE agents were deployed to enforce the laws, and that's what led to the shooting.

I think it's probably fair to criticize the techniques that ICE is using to enforce US immigration law. But ICE using smarter or softer-touch techniques doesn't, it seems to me, guarantee that a shooting won't happen, although it could reduce the odds.

Furthermore, your post claims that ICE agents are trained to avoid walking in front of cars. If that is true, it seems fair to me to criticize the officer for walking in front of the car. But it seems unfair to blame the series of events on "the system" given that the system in place would have prohibited his conduct (if your claims are true.)

I guess I am still trying to drill down on where you think the system failed exactly in this case. Is "the system" democracy? That would certainly make sense of your complaints about the allegedly corrupt conduct of the Trump administration.

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