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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So on a lighter note the Trump ballroom is continually in the new. The two most interesting questions about it aren't addressed often enough.
Why isn't there a Presidential ball room already? Also why is there so much opposition?
What you need to understand about DC is that there are multiple power structures. Many of which aren't connected to directly to the President or WH.
The ballroom creates an issue because it will immediately become the most prestigious ballroom in the area, and arguably the US.
Right now rooms used for prestigious events are also commonly used for much less prestigious events. There's no cachet in just being at an event in any of them.
The WH ballroom changes things. There are a lot of powerful connected people who aren't going to get an invite to the WH ballroom anytime soon, even under a future Democratic presidency. So it's a blow to their egos, and they are very upset about it.
There are DC judges evaluating suits trying to find a justification to block it, and their motivation is primarily that their wives aren't going to be invited and they're going to hear about it for the next 10 years.
Of course the second reason is that by naming traditions of DC, it should be referred to as the "Trump Ballroom" for the next 100 years. And that is clearly no bueno.
I'm sure you can come up with a better model of your opponents' thoughts that this.
You really shouldn't underestimate how socially petty people in politics can be. Of course, one also shouldn't forget that goes for plenty of people on your side, whatever side that is.
I'm sure they are, but I'm also relatively sure they are entitled to their own view on separation of powers. As noted below by another poster, it's historical precedent that Congress & The President cooperate on it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The social status games in DC are actually incredibly important to understanding what happens and doesn't happen there.
I phrased that as a bit of a fun jab, but for a verifiable example some of the injunctions against the USAID defunding / merging with State Department were granted by judges with wives who were active in NGOs receiving USAID money. With all of the lawsuits its a jumble mess to sort through, but I believe they were eventually overturned. So that does give some evidence that the legal reasoning was motivated to begin with.
I mean, it's a verifiable truth that many people are on average more politically aligned with their spouse than a median American.
I don't support the injunctions, but I can see a fairly clear causal pathways where the judge and their spouse both believe in a set of axioms and vibes about the republic that lead them to where they were. And yes, they were all overturned (as they should be).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My old company would do holiday parties in DC. We've been to a few different locations.
They have done it at the peace institute, the natural history museum (my personal favorite), the building museum, the art and technology institute (not sure if that is the right name, this was my least favorite venue), and the African American history museum.
It did feel like a lot of the places were ridiculously prestigious for a run of the mill SaaS tech company. But yeah basically all the venues have some level of prestige. I agree with your assessment that a white house ballroom will be a step ahead of all those other DC venues.
More options
Context Copy link
I suppose Presidents have largely not felt a need for it. I don't think it's a crazy position that the White House should have a larger permanent structure for holding events than the previous ~200 person seating in the East Wing.
How about because it will be ugly? My understanding is the proposed size for the new East Wing is somewhere between 50% and 200% larger than the White House depending on whether you count square footage or three dimensional area. Should the White House be dominated by one of its wings in height and size?
I suspect a lot of people are also disturbed by the process by which this was conducted. Previous significant renovations (construction of the East and West wings, Truman's renovation) were done in conjunction with Congress, paid for by the government. In this case a bunch of private individuals and businesses donated money to Trump (very specifically, not the US government) and the whole thing is being paid for privately. This is conceptually in opposition to the notion that the White House belongs to the government, to We The People, rather than being a possession of whomever happens to be President.
I think opposition being motivated by exclusivity is a weird take. The ballroom is much larger than the building it is replacing. Surely many more people will be invited, not fewer. That's the point of building a larger space to host events.
The thing is that's clearly not true. Right now it's common to set up tents on the lawn to host large events.
It's counterintuitive, but that's why I wanted to post it. Right now the East wing isn't suitable for a large event so it isn't an option. Once there is a larger venue people will have to face the reality that there is a more prestigious option, but they don't qualify.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link