site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   12615 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.

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