site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25304 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 27, 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.

The Department of Justice has filed a Rule 62.1 motion on behalf of the National Park Service, et al.1 asking the district court for an indicative ruling that it would dissolve its preliminary injunction against the White House ballroom construction project if the D.C. Circuit remands for that purpose. In other words, the DoJ says that the assassination attempt on Saturday shows that the district judge's analysis was clearly mistaken, and asks that the district judge formally state that he would lift his own injunction if the D.C. Circuit sent the case back to him for that purpose.

The motion opens:

The National Trust for Historic Preservation” is a beautiful name, but even their name is FAKE because when they add the words “in the United States” to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, it makes it sound like a Governmental Agency, which it is not. In fact, the United States refused to continue funding it in 2005 because they strongly disagreed with their mission and objectives. They are very bad for our Country. They stop many projects that are worthy, and hurt many others. In this case, they are trying to stop one that is vital to our National Security, and the Safety of all Presidents of the United States, both current and future, their families, staff, and Cabinet members. They were asked by the United States Military not to bring this suit because of the Top Secret nature of the important facility being built. They were shown detailed plans and specifications of this knitted, unified, and cohesive structure by Top Officers and Leaders in both the Military and Secret Service. But this did not deter them because they suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, commonly referred to as TDS, as noted by Democrat Senator John Fetterman, of Pennsylvania, and are represented by the lawyer for Barack Hussein Obama, Gregory Craig.

Putting aside the bit where this looks like a Truth Social post rather than a legal filing, the legal strategy of the Trump Administration is interesting here - as far as I can tell, they are making the argument that because there is a legitimate security concern, they should be able to make these changes to the White House without having to go through the usual NCPC review, NEPA review, Congressional authorization, etc. This would

1 where the "et al." is the Executive Office of the President, the White House Chief of Staff, the Office of the Executive Residence, and the White House Chief Usher

The reasoning in the original preliminary injunction is that the President doesn't have statutory authority to make these kinds of alterations. I don't really see how these events bear on that reasoning. "The president was attacked at a private location while attending a private event as an invited guest, therefore he does have the statutory authority to build the ballroom!" Like, what?

What I don't see is why the solution isn't "just give him the statutory authority". At least until after midterm elections, the Republicans have a 5 seat lead in the House and a 6 seat lead in the Senate. The ballroom idea isn't super popular overall, 28-56, but among Republicans it's got supermajority support, and it's at least generally defensible enough that you'd think someone would be willing to introduce a bill and dare the Democrats to filibuster.

If Trump had difficulty whipping up support among his own party in general, that would be one thing, but the guy can get a room full of people to politely watch (or even smile and nod!) while his health secretary brags about their inability to do grade school arithmetic. I'd think "the design isn't too big or garish, not for state functions" would be an easier sell.

It's becoming increasingly difficult to do anything in Congress. My read in DC is that politics on the Hill is becoming more rarified and elite exactly as politics in general becomes more vulgar and populist. The Congressmen and their staffers know they're doing important work, the fact that regular Americans don't know only proves how clueless we all are. The important work being mostly drafting bills that will never go anywhere, but at least they tried, what are you doing?

In that context it becomes more attractive to do everything through executive action. You run the risk of getting shut down, but that looks like better odds than the risk that Congress will do anything. And if you create the opportunity from the White House, Congress can always sign-off later.

It still has decent odds of paying off in this case. This case will probably eventually be thrown out at least for lack of standing (the plaintiff is a pedestrian who claims the new building will ruin her passive aesthetic enjoyment of the city). Maybe they'll come up with more cases. But now that the East Wing is gone it's easier to ask for Congress to bless the Ballroom than it would have been if Trump had asked for it nicely in the first place. In that case it'd probably still be in Committee.

In the long-run this also doesn't play in Congress' favor. Ok, the Ballroom polls poorly with the general public. But the lesson smart ambitious hopeful future staffers and politicians are internalizing is, "Executive Power is the only way to do anything, Congress won't do anything, Judges can't."

Congress is more and more of a rump every term. The regulatory agencies and the president are doing most of the work that Congress used to do. It’s one reason I don’t exactly hate that Trump is ignoring the process. Congress is as useless as the old Roman Senate which became a glorified debate society long before Caesar showed up. Ours is basically there, and so I expect nothing less, if Trump isn’t the founder of the Empire, the founder is coming.

The Roman senate was never more than a debate society, the Roman republic worked of strong executive power.

To a large degree, I think this is because the people on the ground have asked for too much. It's not that the people have too little power- that was what the BoR and the Amendments are an attempt at mitigating (and were to a large degree successful)- it's that they have too much.

Regulatory agencies are an instance of this- they employ lots of people and execute a quasi-popular mandate, but that mandate is also extremely conservative (or "safe") and the agencies [have] become self-licking ice cream cones. Thus the central government becomes, by virtue of those employed at these agencies (and those who do business with them, to a lesser degree) having a vote, captured by those special interests, and Congress (being beholden to them) has become too weak to purge them. That is why it is completely ineffective against them- if Congress moved against the agencies, the people employed by them would purge Congress.

The best thing would be to disenfranchise anyone who works for those public agencies simply because it's a massive conflict of interest. The Founders got it right by not permitting DC to vote, but that has to apply to every public employee (and aside from China, no state at that time was powerful enough to have a bureaucracy of that size, so it's natural they overlooked this). In doing that, that the rest of the citizenry has a better chance of keeping them working in the public interest, not just the interest of the agency. In turn, the agencies must keep the citizenry on board with their agendas (which is in part why RFK is in the position that he is).

This is kind of why emperors get into the positions that make them emperors- the citizens wage a [civil] war, put one of them on the throne, and that generally solves the bureaucracy problem (but creates some obvious others). Elections actually do still allow the average citizen to impose some of their will, but for how long that remains the case remains to be seen.

I think it lags publicly because most people thing the east wing is the left side of the facade of the White House; not some random building on the grounds.

It is fascinating how much resistance building grand buildings gets. Every year hordes of tourists visit palaces, cathedrals and other forms of monumental architecture. Last time I was there I could barely see the trevi fountain because of the tourist horde. GDP is higher than ever yet western civilization isn't producing wonders at nearly the same rate as we were in the 1890s. Western civilization should be outshining Versailles and the Vatican. We don't need to cargo cult and build copies of old styles. We need to make our own art and our own timeless architecture.

I think in order to get Haute Couture in any type of art you need a civilization that still buys its own narrative and one that expects the future to be as least as good as the past. The people building cathedrals imagined that their descendents would be burning incense before the host at the altar a thousand years in the future. They imagined themselves at the beginning of a grand future that would see their descendants living lives they could only fantasize about. If we legitimately believed that our civilization would eventually build a future like our science fiction utopias, and that our civilization was basically right about how to get there, we’d have no problem producing great buildings and great art and great stories. China can produce great works. The bird nest dome at the Olympics was pretty cool I think. We are getting the Olympics, and im mostly expecting them to mostly push the homeless people out of the main venues for two weeks. But we don’t really believe our own mythology anymore, we don’t really think our great great grandchildren will explore the universe in a starship easy chair. We don’t really take our religion seriously anymore (the fundamentalists do, but they’re not a large segment of the population). Why would a civilization that is disillusioned and thinks it’s best days are in the past bother to build or create?

The thing is most great works of architecture were not built to be tourist attractions. They were built for other reasons, and now long after those reasons have been forgotten, they serve as tourist attractions.

When you set the goal at "let's built a tourist attraction", you wind up building Disney World, not Westminster Abbey.

We can’t even build Disney world anymore. Disney is actually pretty freaking great! There was a lot of detail and attention put into it.

Now? Each addition takes forever and misses some key trait the original parks had.

If it was a grand building, maybe; buts it's going to be a tasteless young money rapper level shitbox. We've seen what Trump thinks is beautiful, and it is universally a hideous afront to the western tradition.

I'd rather see some sort of too-many columns and gold basic bitch thing than whatever's going on with the Obama Presidential Center

America's "grand buildings" are skyscrapers. We crank out wonders with such regularity it has become pedestrian and people mostly complain that they're blocking the view.

These old world structures are mostly either religious monuments (of which there are plenty in the US, but lacking the inherent cachet of older construction) or the vanity projects of aristocrats. For the democracies, if you're going to spend 10% of the budget on a decades long project, there's mostly an expectation that it will serve the public (or at least national) interest rather than fluffing the king's ego.

But do these monuments have to be taxpayer-funded? Private citizens can build their own monuments with their own money (1 2).

I think there are much better examples that prove you don't have to be a wealthy businessman to indulge in monument-building.

We have to have public buildings and monuments too.

They don't have to be taxpayer funded, but it is just about the best use for my tax dollars I can think of. Stripping some funding out of subsidizing food for obese Americans and building cool things instead is genuinely one of the absolute best policy changes I can imagine at the federal level and is absolutely what I voted for.

Have you seen the plans for the triumphal arch?. On the one hand, I'm excited to have a giant arch with eagles and lady liberty in DC. On the other hand, the location sucks (I assume because of all the building restrictions in DC) and a large part of the appeal of the Arc de Triomphe is the history and era in which it was built. Just as building an imitation of an antique with modern methods is viewed as tacky and tasteless, we might end up with the Trump Taj Mahal 2.0 in our capital rather than the Arc de Triomphe.

The location is decent because there's nothing there currently. It's a big ugly gaping hole with a very poorly-designed traffic circle around it. (If you don't know what you're doing it's very easy to accidentally be forced to cross the bridge from Virginia to DC, or to accidentally be forced to miss that very crossing.)

What I mean is, it's a giant void and someone was going to fill it eventually.

The location is decent because there's nothing there currently. It's a big ugly gaping hole

In that case, why don't we just put it in [insert hated state here].

The problem is that most tourists come to the mall around federal triangle or judiciary square. Assuming you want to see the Washington monument and Lincoln memorial, you'll have to choose between walking around the tidal basin to the Jefferson memorial and crossing the bridge to see the arch/Arlington cemetery. Or taking one of those shitty bus tours. Would be much better if they could get it somewhere with higher foot traffic around the mall, but again I assume the building regulations around DC screwed them...

It's close enough to Arlington Cemetery and it's serviced by metro. And I'd be in favor of spreading out the tourist monuments a little: the Mall is running out of space for building new monuments.

Would all be fine if we could develop more civilian infrastructure around DC's Monumental Core: restaurants and shops, apartments and office buildings, etc. If you want to get something near Arlington Cemetery you're rather hosed.

What I mean is, it's a giant void and someone was going to fill it eventually.

adjusts tie nervously

But hey, enough about my wife...

a large part of the appeal of the Arc de Triomphe is the history and era in which it was built.

I'm reminded of that proverb that the best time to plant a tree for shade is 20 years ago, but the second best time is now. If we want "public buildings and monuments" (a valid debate itself) we can just build them, but they won't be historical overnight.

Yeah, I think I share your inclination that there's a bit of a cargo cult aspect to the specific aesthetics. I actually do like the location, but I'm biased because I enjoy a run that loops around the monuments and pops out back to VA by crossing right there. Going under the arch on the way back to the Mount Vernon Trail would be pretty cool. I think on net I'd be willing to give up my aesthetic preference in the spirit of just building things and some of them will wind up being cool in the long run.

The parkway is my favorite drive "in the city" but sometimes I wonder what a waterfront we could have if it weren't filled with highways.

Just as building an imitation of an antique with modern methods is viewed as tacky and tasteless,

On the contrary, there's a long history of that with many beloved buildings being imitations of antiques.

Hell, the Arc de Triomphe itself is an imitation of the Roman triumphal arches, of which the Arch of Constantine is the most closely imitated by just about every triumphal arch you've ever seen.

Their argument seems like a uphill battle here.

  1. No one even got hurt at the Hilton event except for what seems to be a friendly fire incident. Unless they're arguing that the president can't be in public locations, the necessity of the ballroom for safety reasons doesn't really work.

  2. The WHCA is a private organization, and there is no reason to assume they would break long running tradition hosting at the Hilton to do it at the ballroom. It's not like the president is required to attend either, Trump himself has skipped almost all of them. What guarantee would they even have there then that the space wouldn't be reneged if they upset the president or have participants barred from access due to critical coverage? It turns a private event that invites the government to an event controlled indirectly by the government.

  3. Even if true, the ballroom would not be completed by the time he leaves office anyway. Any argument for Trump specifically does not work because he will not be in office to benefit from it. He and his admin are not harmed then by waiting.

I'm pretty sure even the lawyers there understand this argument is incredibly stupid given how they didn't take the filing seriously. It seems like it was made hoping they would catch attention online than to actually succeed.

The WHCA is a private organization, and there is no reason to assume they would break long running tradition hosting at the Hilton to do it at the ballroom. It's not like the president is required to attend either, Trump himself has skipped almost all of them. What guarantee would they even have there then that the space wouldn't be reneged if they upset the president or have participants barred from access due to critical coverage? It turns a private event that invites the government to an event controlled indirectly by the government.

Once the President makes an appearance it effectively becomes a public event. (I mean, it is already a public event, just not a "public" event.)

If the President elects not to go, they can continue hosting the WHCD at the Hilton as before.

If the President elects to go, I predict with strong confidence that journalists will be tripping over themselves to go to the White House Ballroom. Virtually all principled opposition to the Ballroom will evaporate for whoever is privileged enough to be one of the cool, the elite, the select few. It's Washington

I think this is a good time to take stock of your stances on things and go "do I really think this is a good/bad idea or am I just responding reflexively because of Trump."

By all accounts the lack of a proper presidential ballroom has been considered a minor national embarrassment for years... but people in D.C. just don't want Trump to be in charge of fixing the problem. That level of petty vindictiveness isn't a surprise, but it shouldn't really be supported, and if you speak to the relevant officials I'd bet money that most of them only oppose it to salve their constituents and not out of genuine belief. Supporting the worst impulses of the populace isn't always wise.

On top of that we have the current issue. Imagine if you were nearly killed in a plane crash or in the hospital, and the Swiss Cheese model successfully prevented the bad outcome. Do think the response to a "near miss" is to leave everything as is? No, we make improvements to close the hole, to avoid the risk of multiple holes lining up next time.

Blessedly the system didn't totally fail. That's not a reason to make no adjustments.

  1. The president frequently attends events.

  2. It would be easier from a security perspective to host these events at a WH ballroom as opposed to random hotels in DC where security is more lax.

  3. It doesn’t matter if Trump personally benefits but the presidency writ large.

It would be easier from a security perspective to host these events at a WH ballroom as opposed to random hotels in DC where security is more lax.

Not that anyone cares, but it would also be way less annoying for DC motorists that are just trying to go home.

It would be easier from a security perspective to host these events at a WH ballroom as opposed to random hotels in DC where security is more lax.

This. There's a saying in Risk Management; 'As Low As Is Reasonably Practicable', whereby you treat or reduce risks as much as you practically can. Also one of the best treatments for risk is Elimination. If the President holding DC events in public exposes him to public threats, you can eliminate exposure to those threats by holding events in private; which is to say on the White House grounds.

I know there is a motivation here to do an end run around the legal hurdles of the ballroom build, but there is a legitimate security argument for holding large events in a more controlled environment.

This. There's a saying in Risk Management; 'As Low As Is Reasonably Practicable', whereby you treat or reduce risks as much as you practically can.

Or, to paraphrase another saying from fraud managements, "the optimum number of assassinated presidents is not zero."

As an outsider, there seems to be this longstanding tension in American thought between, “the president is the tribune of the people and must be kept from harm” and, “the only way to keep the president the tribune of the people is to make sure they can kill him if they want to”.

the ballroom would not be completed by the time he leaves office anyway.

From your lips to God's ears.

Well, it's more likely to work than charging Comey with writing "8647" in seashells, but there's really not much to say about this.

Than what now?

Volokh article

Absent further context, the term can't be reasonably seen as a threat of violence. Of course, with the right context, very many things could be seen as threats of violence. If someone comes to my house waving a gun, saying "I'm going to 86 you" (or a lot of other things), that might well be seen as a threat of violence. But I know of no such context that would lead Comey's tweet to be reasonably interpreted that way.

86 = get rid of, originally a code of uncertain derivation referring to a restaurant expelling a customer who has become tired and emotional as a newt; 47 = 47th president; someone apparently confused '86' with 'deep six' (from the standard depth of a grave) and thought it was a death threat.

Wiktionary has it meaning kill, with a quote from 2017. I'm sure I've heard it with that meaning from long before that too.

Note that (1.) that is the last definition listed, and (2.) killing someone is a subset of getting rid of them.

Kennedy was deep-sixed and thus 86ed; Nixon was 86ed but not deep-sixed.

deep six

Huh, I thought that had to do with water (by the deep six -- quite a bit deeper than by the mark, twain), not graves, but Wiktionary credits both.

Based on my understanding of the restaurant industry which comes from Kitchen Nightmares, 86 means to temporarily take an item off the menu, normally due to a sold-out ingredient but on the show often due to an impulse decision by an insane manager or a gross kitchen screwup.

>he doesn't know about the 8647 seashells

Isn't the Correspondents Dinner attack evidence that the balance of equities do not favor enjoining the project? This motion seems pretty deep in the procedural weeds, so I have no idea if that is a reasonable thing to bring up at this point.

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