site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   5740 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Supreme Court roundup thread? They dropped four opinions today that have some pretty wide ranging implications. Some more than others.

In Chatrie v. United States a 5-4 court (with Roberts and Barrett joining Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson) holds that geofence warrants constitute a "search" under the 4th amendment. This does not necessarily resolve the case in favor of Chatrie, though. The government did have a warrant in this case, although it's not clear whether the warrant was "reasonable." SCOTUS here is mostly pushing back on the holding by the Fourth Circuit panel that a search had not even occurred under the fourth amendment, due to the third party doctrine.

In Watson v. Republican National Committee a 5-4 court (with Roberts and Barrett joining Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson) the court holds that federal laws specifying an election day do not pre-empt state laws that permit counting ballots received after that day, so long as the ballots are sent by that day.

In Trump v. Slaughter a 6-3 court holds that the "for-cause" removal provision for FTC commissioners is unconstitutional, overruling Humphrey's Executor. This was pretty widely anticipated, since the Supreme Court has gradually been expanding the President's power to remove officials since Trump's re-election.

In Trump v. Cook a 5-4 court (Roberts and Kavanaugh joining Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson) holds that the President may not fire members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governor's at-will. The for-cause provision regarding firing members of the Feds BoG is constitutional and sets a "substantial threshold" for what constitutes cause.

Most online discussion I've seen has been focused on the latter two decisions and their apparent inconsistency. Apparently, Congress can only insulate executive branch employees from Presidential termination some of the time and those circumstances do not depend on the wording of the statute or anything else Congress has any control over. 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. The Federal Reserve itself is a mere 1 year older than the FTC (founded in 1913 vs 1914) so Roberts tries to reach back to the First and Second Bank of the United States and nevermind the fact there was an 80 year period where the United States had no central bank between the Second Bank of the United States and the Federal Reserve. Some of the syllabus even, in my view, departs from anything that could be called a legal argument to argue that this is good policy:

Although this extraordinary case arises on the Court’s interim docket, the Court has had the benefit of not only amici and oral argument but months of internal consultation and deliberation. The Court declines to sow doubt as to the status of one of the Nation’s (and the world’s) most important financial institutions, and would not so quickly unsettle this “special arrangement sanctioned by history.”

The court has also said tomorrow will be the last opinion day, in which we will presumably get the four remaining opinions (including birthright citizenship) so maybe I'll have to do another one tomorrow.

I want to place a bet on birthright. I care basically zero about the legal arguments and I don’t think Robert’s primary instinct is choosing the best legal argument.

Simplistically I don’t believe Robert’s will want to create the next Roe v Wade that lacks a legislative solution and ends up creating a voting block that only votes for repeal of Roe. I will consider voting only for candidates who will appoint judges who will repeal Birthright if Robert’s removes the ability of action on the issue outside of the SC. I think both legal arguments to go either way are intellectually coherent so you can just pick the legal theory you want.

My gut says he upholds most of birthright but finds a way to let congress make the rules in the future. This may be the weakest legal theory to just punt to congress but it feels like it fits with Robert decisions. And this includes deciding the Fed is special today. It’s usually better to punt controversial things to congress instead of locking change into multi-decade SC battles.

Everyone knows amending the constitution is impossible now so amending the Constitution just comes down to change the Court membership. Getting controversial things out of the court hands has value to maintain the Court legitimacy. You don’t want a different court in 20 years reversing tomorrows decision.

Your gut was wrong, and Kavanaugh was the one who was looking to let Congress handle it.

Yep wrong. But was like 95% of being upheld on prediction markets. Already being at 4 to strike it down I would have thought got Robert’s in play.

Barrett was a mistake.

Barrett was a mistake from day 0, she never should have been in line for the court. Alas, she got there because she's a woman, and because Roe v Wade.

Given her record since joining the Court I'm actually shocked that she was shortlisted.

But Thomas was put on the court to swap Thurgood Marshall for another black man, and he's based as all hell.

Probably they get rid of birthright citizenship but make an exception for anyone who’s gotten it to date. Which isn’t totally inconsistent because the Constitution frowns on the ex-post-facto application of laws.

Roe v Wade was bad because it was legislating from the bench. It is very hard to make the argument that the constitution grants abortion rights without tying your head into a pretzel.

If you want to argue that the 14th does not grant children of migrants citizenship then you would have to argue that what the authors meant by jurisdiction is in fact the duty to pay capital income tax in the US, and that the former slaves had this duty but foreign residents do not, or find some other bizarre interpretation of jurisdiction.

Getting controversial things out of the court hands has value to maintain the Court legitimacy.

Would you feel the same way about the rights granted by 2A as by 14A?

I am a big fan of a legal system where words mean things, and courts try their best to interpret the meaning of the text while also keeping previous precedent (where it did an honest job of interpreting the meaning).

If words do not mean things, you do not need much in the way of a constitution, you can simply have a SCOTUS filled by wise elders who can veto any laws or decrees they deem unwise and replace them with wiser ones.

You don’t want a different court in 20 years reversing tomorrows decision.

That is an argument for not torturing the text of the constitution until it confesses to your meaning and the Kennedy assassination.

I am solidly pro-choice, but I fully understand the pro-life's anger at Roe v Wade. It is not like there had been an abortion amendment and the SCOTUS was just "jupp, that means abortion has to be legal". Instead, the court conjured this thing out of thin air, because they felt that achieving the right ends was more important than using the right means (e.g. sensible textual interpretations). So pro-life embarked on a half-century quest to replace SCOTUS with more sympathetic justices, and actually succeeded.

I do not hold overturning Roe v Wade against the current SCOTUS because it was clearly a terrible precedent. By contrast, United States v Wong Kim Ark follows a textual reading of the 14th. If the SCOTUS overturns this precedent without providing a rock-solid argument why it was in fact wrong, they will prove that they are as much partisan hacks as the court which decided Roe.

In that case, filling the SCOTUS with their candidates will be the prime objective of both parties. Either the Republicans win, in which case 14A is only of historical interest, and 1A might not apply to anything Trump labels "left-wing radical", or the Dems win, and 2A will only be of historical interest, and 1A will not apply to anything which president Newsom designates as "hate speech", which will coincidentally include most campaigning by the GOP.

Both of these outcomes would be terrible. I would much rather see the SCOTUS return to being non-partisan referees. Luckily for me, it seems that the current SCOTUS is not afraid to vote against Trump when they feel he is just plain wrong.

If you want to argue that what the authors meant by jurisdiction is in fact the duty to pay capital income tax in the US, and that the former slaves had this duty but foreign residents do not, or find some other bizarre interpretation of jurisdiction.

Or, you know, the pretty basic argument thar "jurisdiction" means just citizens, and a very particular carve out for ex-slaves and native Americans.

My perspective as an non-American third party is that it's pretty clear why the language "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was used instead of just explicitly writing the 14A to restrict citizenship to children of existing citizens (jus sanguinis). It was to include the weird cases of ex-slaves (and later, native Americans, though that's messy about their jurisiction status and for any future similar unusual circumstances) and was never intended to allow for blanket jus soli citizenship.

Ex-slaves and native Americans, even though they weren't citizens, were clearly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in a way that an anchor baby of a citizen of another country is not.

Why are you bringing up American Indians? They are clearly not granted citizenship by the 14th Amendment, it had to be granted later by statute.

So whatever "subject to the jurisdiction" means clearly excluded them, even if they could be prosecuted for crimes committed off of the reservation.

If you want to argue that the 14th does not grant children of migrants citizenship then you would have to argue that what the authors meant by jurisdiction is in fact the duty to pay capital income tax in the US, and that the former slaves had this duty but foreign residents do not, or find some other bizarre interpretation of jurisdiction.

What say you to a legal argument I believe carries at least some consideration in that Wong Kim Ark was correctly decided for children of what could be analogized to green card holders (and permanent residents) from back then, but that does not grant citizenship for the children of people here temporarily (vacationing, limited visas, etc) or illegal immigrants. The legal backing would be that Native Americans born on US soil were not granted citizenship in the 14th as it required the passage of a later bill to make that happen - so clearly at the time the 14th was ratified not just anyone who gave birth to a child on US soil was given citizenship.

Would you feel the same way about the rights granted by 2A as by 14A?

Even I'm amenable to the idea that there are categories of weapons that ought not be available to random assholes. McNukes are a fun joke, but not something taken seriously by people outside the range of Sovereign Citizens.

Similarly, I don't think the founders, or the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment, envisioned a world where a peer rival could trivially fly millions of pregnant women out to a tourist resort to give birth, and thereby build up a massive voting block of birthright citizens with entirely foreign loyalty.

What?

I think you might be the first person to envision that today. Personally, I’d rule that airlifting millions (?!) in a ploy to seize voting rights involves removing U.S. jurisdiction over whatever area. Defeating the world’s premier air power would certainly do that.

But it’s not exactly salient. How many of the existing illegals used a plane at all? Surely the founders were aware of the possibility of land crossings.

No, that already happened. China has something in the ballpark of a million of it's people who have American citizenship via birthright tourism - and the trend appears to be accelerating.

That seems pretty damn salient.

Presuppose Roe was decided correctly. But we still had 30% of US population voting to overturn it anyway as single issue voters. Is that good for society? It’s better now people can vote on it.

2A already has been butchered. Maybe it’s good maybe it’s bad. But status quo is a court that isn’t being textualists on 2A.

You have admitted yourself theirs plausible cover to rule either way. Slaves paid global taxes to US. Migrants do not etc.

I think the Robert’s court is pragmatic so I think they find a way to give a flexible ruling.

I am solidly pro-choice, but I fully understand the pro-life's anger at Roe v Wade.

Even Justice Ginsburg once said that she thought that Roe was awkward law that probably set back the pro-choice movement a lot.

She said they should have found another argument to enshrine an abortion right and it was the wrong case. So there was still a desire to find a plausible argument that made abortion a right.

Sure, but even within that mindset Roe isn’t great. I think she also touched on the backlash it caused and said it might have been better to let it progress through democratic means, but I could be misremembering.

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