site banner
PaperclipPerfector  13hr ago (text post)   2043 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 29, 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.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Roberts is the author of both opinions and he tries to square the circle by arguing that the United States has a long history of independent central banking but I don't think he's very convincing.

Okay, assuming this is just a fig leaf for a political decision, could someone please lay out for me the political reason why someone might rule differently in Slaughter and Cook? Because I am clueless about this.

I think basically Roberts didn't want to scare the hoes. Or rather, the bros. Giving the President that much control over the Fed would upset the financial markets and Roberts never wants to rock the boat that much.

One steel man aside is that there is a substantial history of an independent central bank in the Founding Era whereas for-cause-only removals for administrative agencies are a much more recent thing.

One can argue whether such history embodies a real rule of Constitutional interpretation, ie. that a document should not be interpreted to forbid what its contemporary supporters were doing, but it's not entirely wacky.

One can argue whether such history embodies a real rule of Constitutional interpretation, ie. that a document should not be interpreted to forbid what its contemporary supporters were doing, but it's not entirely wacky.

I would hope not. It took like 5 minutes for the Federalists under the Adams administration to outlaw scandalous criticism of the President, which of course is a proud American tradition.

The Federal Reserve controls the country and the fed is in turn controlled by international financial interests. Therefore FTC gets sacrificed but Fed is untouchable.

Unless I'm missing something isn't the whole point that the one group is the metaphorical arms of the president and the other group is supposed to be objective separate body? I feel like everything falls neatly from there...

There is a general belief that Fed independence is a crucial linchpin undergirding American wealth and prosperity, regardless of how strong the legal argument is for it.

My preference would be for the Supreme Court to rip the band-aid and let Trump ruin our economy for a bit, and show people why we should get a proper Constitutional amendment protecting Fed independence, but that isn't going to happen.

IMO an amendment guaranteeing Fed Independence would be worse than the disease. The Fed can do Coups. They do have the technology to cause a Depression. You would essentially give the Fed the power to hold the rest of government hostage. That is not good. As it is now if Trump does something bad he can lose the next election.

They did not do it on purpose but they basically caused the Great Depression.

That would somehow require you to believe that the era before 1913 was somehow neither wealthy nor prosperous, or that the wealth and prosperity is no longer obtainable.

Obviously the US was wealthy and prosperous at the end of the 19th century. Incredibly wealthy and prosperous, in fact. What Fed independence is undergirding is exactly the kind of control over government that was repeatedly warned against by Jackson, among many.

The Fed is not a fourth branch of government, and Congress cannot make them so.

The Fed is not a fourth branch of government, and Congress cannot make them so.

No, but Congress and a supermajority of the states can make them so.

The main political explanation people argue is that fucking with the federal reserve hurts the markets and if there's one thing they care about more than expanding the Trump executive, it's their finances.

I don't know if this is the correct explanation, but it's the main one I've seen.

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