site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   9633 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

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.

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

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.

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.

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