site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   7364 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

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.

  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.

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