site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   25125 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Just glancing at this –

  1. Just pragmatically, I don't think agencies like the FCC, FTC and SEC have ever really done anything for conservatives, so why would conservatives want to protect a bastion of their enemies? This could be a good idea long term since it means conservatives can remove their ideological enemies from those organizations regularly instead of running the risk of them turning blue with no practical recourse.
  2. From a principled point of view, the establishment of such agencies is somewhat constitutionally dodgy – I believe they often use administrative law judges (who don't have to go through the normal political appointment process) and because they are independent they aren't really responsive to the will of the voters and thus arguably don't fit into the Constitutional schema. (The counteragument to this, I think, is holding a strong view of legislative power, but of course the legislative cannot legislate contrary to the Constitution, so it seems like there is a chance that SCOTUS decides these agencies are carrying out executive power and Congress can't really delegate that out.)

Just pragmatically, I don't think agencies like the FCC, FTC and SEC have ever really done anything for conservatives, so why would conservatives want to protect a bastion of their enemies?

Even if you accept that they have never done anything for conservatives, can't you see that they could be doing a lot more to conservatives? Their independence cuts both ways. It harder to get them to stop doing something harmful, but also a lot harder to get them to start.

And while I'm not sure if administrative law judges are "constitutional" I'm pretty sure that having no judges at all isn't going to do anything to preserve my constitutional rights.

And while I'm not sure if administrative law judges are "constitutional" I'm pretty sure that having no judges at all isn't going to do anything to preserve my constitutional rights.

You're missing the whole Article III branch. ALJs are executive employees.

It harder to get them to stop doing something harmful, but also a lot harder to get them to start.

Yes, this seems like a potential downside.

And while I'm not sure if administrative law judges are "constitutional" I'm pretty sure that having no judges at all isn't going to do anything to preserve my constitutional rights.

The cure for this is actual independent judges, not having disputes between agencies and outsiders moderated by employees of the agency.

The cure for this is actual independent judges

Judges are structurally incapable of being independent. They're either appointed by a particular political party or (in rare cases) elected.

I still think it's better to be before a judge who was appointed or elected than one who was hired by your adversary in the case which is how ALJs work.

Right. For instance, if the FAA wants to fine you, they sent you a letter called a "Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty". You can either accept the penalty, or request a hearing before an administrative judge in the FAA Office of Adjudication. After this judge finds you guilty, you get an appeal... to the administrator of the FAA, who delegates this to the FAA Chief Counsel's office -- which is the office prosecuting you. (They used to, but no longer, delegate it to the actual prosecutor in your case.) After you lose there, you can appeal to the US Court of Appeals, but the standard of review is very deferential.

The Star Chamber had nothing on this, perhaps besides efficiency.

Who are they accountable to? Not the presidents, not the congress and before the fall of the Chevron doctrine - not to the judiciary. Who can tell the head of the EPA or FCC what they should do?

Not sure if this was meant to be a reply to me, but yes, I think this is part of why they might be considered Constitutionally dodgy.

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