site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   20139 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.

Where was it said that the balance of power was intended to be at heavily ideologically progressive skew of the pre-Trump level?

Congress said it, right now, by not passing a law to do it themselves. I wouldn't exactly be happy about congress passing a law to reduce the independence of independent agencies, but it would at least be government operating in its proper course. Alternatively, the president filing suit to get the legal framework of independent agencies before the supreme court would still be respecting constitutional norms in a way that at the very least can't be symmetrically copied by a later democratic president (since republicans are likely to control the supreme court for the rest of my life, barring court-packing.)

Doing this with an executive order is a naked grab for power from both the courts and congress, with no recourse for either.

Why should anyone care after all the abuses of the executive from FDR to Obama?

Two wrongs doesn't make a right, buddy. Especially when this latest wrong enables dramatically more impactful wrongs in later presidents.

Doing this with an executive order is a naked grab for power from both the courts and congress, with no recourse for either.

Not so, executive orders are themselves reviewable by the Supreme Court.

"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

And this cuts both ways, as Bruen and Heller have demonstrated.

You replied to a filtered post.

thanks, filter's cleared.

Two wrongs doesn't make a right, buddy.

Actually they do; tit-for-tat-with-forgiveness is a pretty great strategy for incentivizing everyone to behave.

Morality is not subject to game theory. "Two wrongs don't make a right" is a moral judgement, not a statement of what will be effective.

One would think it's been more than 400 years since political philosophy moved on from naive idealism.

Ineffective principles are not moral in any useful sense. Not as applied to politics anyways. Even Natural Law is a form of instrumentalism at the end of the day.

Congress said it, right now, by not passing a law to do it themselves.

Where is it said that only Congress can do it, and only by passing a law?

Two wrongs doesn't make a right, buddy.

If literally no one who is bothered by this voiced their protest about the past abuses, how am I supposed to believe they consider it to be two wrongs?

Especially when this latest wrong enables dramatically more impactful wrongs in later presidents.

That doesn't make it different from past abuses.

Where is it said that only Congress can do it, and only by passing a law?

In the part where the constitution gives the branches particular enumerated powers and "the power to regulate" isn't assigned to the president.

If literally no one who is bothered by this voiced their protest about the past abuses, how am I supposed to believe they consider it to be two wrongs?

This is a bullshit argument and you know it. People complain incessantly about the abuses of their own side-- particuarly with the technocrat and left-populist factions of the democrats having been at odds since 2016.

That doesn't make it different from past abuses.

There's a difference between killing one person and killing ten people, even if they're both murder. I'm still struggling to understand why you think the best remedy to presidential abuses of power is to cheer them on when they abrogate to themselves even more powers to abuse.

In the part where the constitution gives the branches particular enumerated powers and "the power to regulate" isn't assigned to the president.

So this all rests on the Constitution not giving specific powers to a particular branch of the federal government? Do you have any idea how many ships have sailed from that port?

This is a bullshit argument and you know it. People complain incessantly about the abuses of their own side-- particuarly with the technocrat and left-populist factions of the democrats having been at odds since 2016.

No, I don't know it. First, unless by "populist left" you mean people like Glenn Greenwald, this doesn't even seem all that true to me, and secondly, we're not just talking about what the left would consider abuse in the context of an intra-left battle, we're talking about things not allowed by the constitution.

There's a difference between killing one person and killing ten people, even if they're both murder.

I'm yet to hear the argument for why what's happening now is comparable to the guy killing ten people rather than one.

I'm still struggling to understand why you think the best remedy to presidential abuses of power is to cheer them on when they abrogate to themselves even more powers to abuse.

For the same reason I wouldn't feel bad about flirting with a colleague, after I found my wife cheated on me.

Okay you say the president doesn’t have the power to regulate. Can you show me where in the constitution the SEC has the power to regulate? What branch of the government? Who delegated those powers and are those powers delegable?

Congress delegating the power to regulate under specific constrained conditions (that the regulation take place in an independent agency) does not mean the president irrevocably has total power to write regulation.

Or, well, I guess now it does. Let's see how sanguine you are about all this the next time a non-republican president is in office.

Or, well, I guess now it does. Let's see how sanguine you are about all this the next time a non-republican president is in office.

It will be the same as ever under non-Republican presidents: Full compliance with the whims of the Democrat. The only change is that, potentially, some whims of the Republican president might get followed now.

You fire off a lot of responses but aren’t reading what I wrote.

You said the president cannot make regulations. That would be a curious claim constitutional but let’s put that to the side because that isn’t what I asked.

I asked “where is the constitutional scheme whereby an independent agency can write regulations.” It doesn’t really exist. So before you complain about the president having illegitimate constitutional power (without making the argument) why not argue why independent agencies have that right.

And I’ve been very anti administrative state for years and years. It wasn’t just a happenstance of “oh Trump is doing something yeah.” So get that bullshit out of here.

where is the constitutional scheme whereby an independent agency can write regulations.

and I answered "in the bit where it gave that power to congress, and then congress gave it to the independent agency (and NOT the president.)"

And I’ve been very anti administrative state for years and years.

Okay well I hope you're ready to change tactics and start railing against the monarchial-presidential state. All the government's power is still there... it's just more strongly concentrated into a single person.

  1. Saying congress did X isn’t showing how it’s constitutional. The constitution says the legislative power is vested in congress. Congress cannot therefore vest that power in anyone else. It cannot say you can make the law for example.

  2. I actually suspect the president destroying the independent agency won’t change that much — most of what the executive does is already controlled by the president. But killing the bureaucracy? That is worthwhile as now you can have real change which might lead to congressional control.

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