site banner
PaperclipPerfector  20hr ago (text post)   2600 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 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.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Overheard at work:

Did you hear about the shutdown?
What? The whole government?
No, just DHS. Check your flight info.
So TSA is shutdown, or at least running slow, or—oh, my flight is just delayed an hour.

Business as usual. I was also unaware of any particular crisis brewing over TSA, so I looked it up. Lo and behold: this is actually old news. Nothing has changed since DHS was pseudo-defunded a month ago.

So why am I hearing about it now? Well, a month is long enough for a missed government paycheck. Which means the TSA staff, who were apparently holding down the fort, are getting increasingly antsy. Somewhere around 300 have quit. Combined with a surprise cold front, airport security lines have been upgraded from mild to moderate inconvenience.

The usual suspects are blaming Democrats: Schiff, Booker deflect on shutdown blame amid terror concerns, thousands of DHS workers without pay. I’m still trying to figure out how this is their fault, given the Republican trifecta; Rep. Collins suggests that they are completely stonewalling any attempts at compromise. I think the last attempt was supposed to be a White House proposal from late February, but I couldn’t find the actual text of it, so I don’t know if it was at all credible. Sen. Schumer naturally insisted that it wasn’t. Perhaps we’re seeing two parties sticking to the foot-in-the-door tactic.

So, how does this type of gridlock get resolved? Do Republicans come to the table first? Do Democrats? Do airlines start privatizing security, or do they just give up on running flights?

I’m still trying to figure out how this is their fault, given the Republican trifecta;

Republicans voted to keep it open but Democrats didn’t. It takes 60 votes to avoid a filibuster. You already know that because you admit it takes two parties to negotiate.

It only takes 51 votes to remove the filibuster. It's a fig leaf that the senate uses to avoid blame, nothing more. I blamed the democrats for being useless when they could have removed it before, and I'm happy blaming the republicans for refusing to remove it now.

Removing the filibuster is getting fairly popular with anyone of intellect. A lot of people are realizing we have too many checks and balances and congress does nothing.

congress does nothing.

*taps constitutional conservative sign*

This is a feature of congress, not a bug. The point of the structure of the Senate (equal state representation instead of proportional, longer terms, advise and consent duties to executive branch appointments, most special of which are SCOTUS judges, etc.) is that it is supposed to be the "collegial institution" that slows down the structurally populist, high variance legislative whipsawing of the House. The filibuster necessitating close to a super majority to override is a continuation of that.

Americans' problem isn't with Congress per se, it's mostly with the creeping Federal bureaucracy, regulatory apparatus (which has a positive feedback loop with general PMC culture), and the imperial presidency. The growth of Leviathan since WW2 is the problem. I don't want to see Congress becoming fundamentally more active. I'd like to see them pare back the powers of the executive branch (which they can do but most members are a bit too tied at the hip to any given sitting President.)

Then, I'd like to see a hard RETVRN to Federalism that places states as the primary "actors." California can experiment with its polyamory socialist redistributionism while West Virginia fucks around with legalizing machine guns.

Right now, this is extremely murky in actual application because of 1) The 14th amendment and 2) The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the several amendments passed on it in the intervening decades. We'd probably be looking at a SCOTUS decision so far reaching that this SCOTUS - which is conservative any way you slice it, the argument is only to what degree - wouldn't take such a case.

That's the deeper "Straussian" view of the gridlock.

It ain't the filibuster.

...I hope you're not claiming to get that view from actual Straussians. The closest thing there is to a (West Coast) Straussian perspective on the current state of Congress is that the Constitution intends for the legislature to be a dynamic, powerful branch which acts to shape the law as necessary. The Senate is a participant in that process, but a participant in an actual working process. Congress today is a castrati choir because of the Leviathan you mentioned, but Congress also willingly abdicated their power to Leviathan in order to keep their chairs comfy and spend more time fundraising.

Then, I'd like to see a hard RETVRN to Federalism that places states as the primary "actors." California can experiment with its polyamory socialist redistributionism while West Virginia fucks around with legalizing machine guns.

From your lips to Lady Columbia's ears.

Regardless we already expanded the executive powers to rule instead of congress.

Filibuster isn’t in the constitution. The founding fathers definitely believed that there are things that need to be done at the national level.

For this specific discussion we are talking about border security which every founding father would 100% agree congress should make laws about it.

For this specific discussion

That's fair. Regarding immigration specifically, I generally agree with you and the other posters above.

I was trying to develop the full picture, however. I am generally hyper suspicious of "if we just did this one thing" style solutions. And so, here, I was pointing out that nuking the filibuster won't actually "fix" congress.

Current country partisan makeup basically means nothing can pass with the filibuster. The government does have to govern

Yes I would like to see it ended too but it changes this calculus of who is to blame. “The Republicans”? Trump called for eliminating the filibuster. MAGA wants to end the filibuster. Blaming “the Republicans” makes it sound as though MAGA is to blame, too extreme, maybe they should abolish ICE so Democrats feel comfortable letting planes flies again?

Yes but the core sticking point here is ICE, which is under DHS. DHS isn't getting funded because of ICE. Unless Trump wants to negotiate big on ICE operations, I predict the democrats are unwilling to fund DHS. I don't think Donny wants to make a deal yet.

Sounds like you’re in favor of not funding DHS then — great, thanks for proving my point!

Actually, I work in applied research that is funded by the government, I have research work that had strong interest from a division of the DHS back in Jan and have been playing whack-a-mole trying to get it funded since. I am just acutely aware of the funding issues and the reasons for. I think attempting to project my motivations onto your simple partisan 1D axis is a fools errand.

Your use of “Donny” is coded a certain way so perhaps I am over-reacting but generally I’m tired of the pattern where some blame Republicans for the shutdown(s) while explicitly advocating for pressing the defect button. I mean nothing personally, this is just an arguing forum and we can all shuffle around next debate

I’m still trying to figure out how this is their fault, given the Republican trifecta;

Republicans do not have a filibuster-proof trifecta, and Dems used that to block DHS funding, while demanding completely insane poison pills to functionally stop immigration enforcement and open ICE agents to more leftist terror attacks. Your flight was delayed to fight for this for the whole country.

From the link:

On Friday, Judge Dipti Pidikiti-Smith

Dipti Pidikiti?!

Are we in a simulation? That's like a Latino judge being named Speedy Gonzalez or some shi---

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

They could always just completely axe the TSA.

They could always just completely axe box-cutter the TSA.

"Never let a good crisis go to waste"

TSA workers should stay fired. Replace them with overt surveillance and heavily promote CLEAR+ and TSA-Pre. TSA has been an over-funded albatross around the neck of global aviation since 9/11. About time we upgraded to something automated and effective.

The shutdown gives solid political cover to both parties. Both parties can blame the other while TSA workers find employment elsewhere. Once the shutdown eases, they can evaluate whether to rehire individuals or let technology fill in the gaps.

I wish they had the 300 IQ to be doing this. Getting rid of airport security theater in favor of the tech panopticon is the way to go. We're already doing it, we might as well have speedy lines as a result.

So, how does this type of gridlock get resolved? Do Republicans come to the table first? Do Democrats? Do airlines start privatizing security, or do they just give up on running flights?

Another option: get rid of security lines. They didn't need it in the 90s.

A lot of things were different in the 90s. Apparently, we didn’t realize hijackings could be suicidal. I wouldn’t mind replacing the TSA, but I don’t think repealing it entirely is an option.

You can’t put the toothpaste back in the 2 oz. tube.

Since we realized the thing that has prevented another kamakazi airliner hasn't been the TSA, it's been passengers who fight to the death on the plane.

Apparently, we didn’t realize hijackings could be suicidal.

You don't need the TSA precisely because, since 2001, every passenger has had it drilled into them they're the last line of defense and that if you let a hijacking go, you're going to die. This isn't the '70s or '80s where hijackers were annoying but mostly harmless- it is that kind of population that needs the TSA, not the modern one where everyone knows they're an existential threat.

If you're going to die in an intentional plane crash at any time past that point, it's because the plane hijacked itself pilot did it on purpose, and the locked door kept the passengers out until it was too late.

Even moreso.

It's been this way since literally September 11, 2001. Flight 93 - that crash landed in Pennsylvania - did some because the passengers had heard from loved ones calling them on their cell phones about the NYC strikes.

It's amazing how the entire lifespan of the hijacking tactics and strategy of Al-Qaeda began and ended on 9/11

First one's always free.

the locked door kept the passengers out until it was too late.

It feels like the locked door has caused unintended consequences that policymakers didn't think of. Is there any way to keep the locked door and prevent suicidal pilots, or is that just another policy we have to accept because politicians didn't think it could backfire in probably the most predictable way possible?

It did backfire with that Lufthansa flight. Since then they have a two person in the cockpit rule which seems to have mostly worked. If the pilot or copilot leaves then they call a stewardess in.

We could go back to the days of the three-person crew with a flight engineer, and ensure that 2 people are in the cockpit at all times.

Even with a second set of hands, a pilot can still irreversibly fuck up a plane during takeoff or landing, when the margin of error is smallest (see Air India 171).

There are copilots who should prevent this as much as possible, but realistically what would the average passenger do? A determined pilot could dive down faster than a passenger could react.

Or we're simply more sensitive to even trivial risks. We could make planes open carry friendly, and it would be fine.

Is an open carrier executing both pilots without warning, or emptying his magazine into the wing/fuel tank, or the avionics console, or taking his gun to the rear lavatory and emptying it in the general direction of the rear elevator assembly (a not very redundant piece of plane that has a bad track record of allowing recovery when it fails), all considered a "trivial risk", or did you not consider those possibilities at all? (Too many cases of gun activist fantasies running on shounen anime rules, villains pausing to give a speech about their motivations and all.)

Neither these scenarios, nor the use of firearms to stop hijackings, will happen. Airplane security is pointless.

Do you not believe there is anyone who would bring down an airplane, if it were sufficiently easy? Forget about terrorists with an agenda, what about all the random spree shooters that the US gets every other month?

Jesus Christ. I feel like that would ground more planes purely from Sig owners.

If only we had a system that held firearms manufacturers accountable for manufacturing defects, but we don't. To my knowledge Sig has faced very few significant consequences.

The question that needs to be answered for this to happen is: How do you prevent any mechanism for suing gun manufacturers from being abused by the massive lobby of well-funded activists who are politically opposed to the existence of those companies?

They still had some basic security in the 90s, like metal detectors. They just didn't have weird sweaty guys giving you a pat down, or confiscating your nail clippers. The real security upgrade is the locked cabin doors + better background screening and counter-terrorism in general. We could go back to a more relaxed boarding process. They've already given up some of the worst bits of security theater, like making people take off their shoes and belt. I don't know how much they even search people's carry-ons anymore, I always put a ton of junk in mine and they hardly ever stop me.

Airport security basically doesn't exist as an inconvenience any more if you are willing to pass a background check and pay some money. The background check is what actually replaces the security, the money is why they keep the shitty lines for the plebs.

Sure, but does that count as “getting rid of security lines”?

I guess pre-check is pretty nice.

Well, in my memory (admittedly it's been a long time) there was hardly any line. You could pretty much just show up to the airport and walk right onto the plane, just pausing briefly to walk through a metal detector. It's still like that for busses and trains, so it's not impossible.

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