site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   21454 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 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.

One option then, is to hack federal law in order to go after the protestors

In this case it's not really even a hack -- "disrupting a place of worship" is black-letter FACE act AFAICT.

(or maybe you could say that the hack took place when that law was implemented, in that including places of worship was not the initial goal of the legislators -- but that seems neither here nor there)

(or maybe you could say that the hack took place when that law was implemented, in that including places of worship was not the initial goal of the legislators -- but that seems neither here nor there)

Yeah, I think FACE, hate crimes laws, and some other civil rights era laws are basically hacks on the original U.S.Constitution, which gave police powers by default to the state. But when the federal government assumed basically all sovereignty, it needed ways to takeover police powers when the states weren't doing what the feds wanted.

My thought upon reading these comments was, "How the hell does Congress have the authority to pass such a law in the first place?"

The Wikipedia article on the law references a locked article, but the internet exists and has ways to fix the glitch, so I found that the case that Wiki refers to for noting that a federal district court upheld the law is American Life League, Inc. v. Reno. The opinion helpfully provides a concise little Section III. Congress's Authority to Enact FACE. Concise enough that I'll quote in full, only removing references:

At the outset, the Court rejects the plaintiffs' argument that Congress lacked authority to enact FACE. Congress has the power, under the Commerce Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3, and the Necessary and Proper Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 18, to regulate interstate commerce and intrastate activity that affects interstate commerce. This authority extends to enacting criminal penalties for individual acts, even if not all of the potential defendants had actual connections to interstate commerce. The legislative history of FACE shows that Congress had evidence both of numerous women crossing state lines to obtain reproductive services no longer available in their home states and of anti-abortion organizations crossing state lines in order to orchestrate violence against abortion providers and patients. The Senate hearings also include extensive testimony concerning the inability and, in some cases, unwillingness of local law enforcement authorities to provide adequate protection for reproductive health service clinics, their staffs, and patients. We find that Congress had ample evidence of the impact upon interstate commerce of myriad threats, bombings, stalkings, blockades and assaults inflicted on reproductive health services providers and patients, and that the prohibitions in FACE are a reasonable and appropriate means to address the problem.

Now, if you noticed, the Wiki article says this was in 1995. ...but the opinion says it was June 16, 1994. Lopez was handed down on April 26, 1995. Contrary to what one might have heard, Lopez has aged... well, not perfectly, but at least acceptably well. There is no way that such an argument for Congressional authority flies that easily today. If I had to take a position right now without briefing or oral arguments, I'd say that the hack took place when the law was passed and that it was an unconstitutional overreach of Congressional authority from day one. Would be the peak of irony if a leftist protester raised this challenge now and won, demonstrating that all the harassment of pro-life folks for decades was never legal.

Would be the peak of irony if a leftist protester raised this challenge now and won, demonstrating that all the harassment of pro-life folks for decades was never legal.

What would happen is they would raise the challenge and win. Then Congress would pass a substantially similar law with some tweak to make it technically different. That law would continue to be used against right-wingers and survive all challenges, right up until someone managed to use it against a leftist again.

Would be the peak of irony if a leftist protester raised this challenge now and won, demonstrating that all the harassment of pro-life folks for decades was never legal.

This is what I've always said. Do not call up that which you cannot put down, or, be very careful what weapons you craft, because there is no immutable law of the universe that your side will eternally be the one in power, and when your enemies replace you, you will have left them all these weapons to use against you.

Seems like the "right side of history" legislators and courts of the day wanted to go after the horrible pro-lifers interfering with the right to abortion, so they passed and upheld this law. Now it's being used against today's right side of history people. Who could possibly have foreseen bad things happening if I pushed the big red button that said DO NOT PUSH?

To be clear, we are discussing a case where what they called up was used to excellent effect for three decades, and only now begins to turn on them when the entire country is coming apart at the seams.

It's not obvious from a pure power analysis perspective that they made the wrong play here. At least wait until there's some actual convictions, eh?

It was a bone thrown to the right, but it was done in bad faith -- no one ever intended it to be used and I think so far, only Trump has even attempted to use it, and the courts are resisting because they know it wasn't supposed to be used.

It was a bone thrown to the right, but it was done in bad faith -- no one ever intended it to be used and I think so far, only Trump has even attempted to use it

I find your endless defeatism boring and ignorant.

Per the Grand Jury Indictment that lead to his arrest Don Lemon has been charged with violating USC 18-241. A law that was originally part of the Enforcement act of 1870 and then updated in 1948 specifically to target the KKK, to which it was used to great effect.

That the masked individuals disrupting church services in this particular case happened to be black democrats in black hoodies instead of white democrats in white hoods has no legal bearing on the matter.

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