site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   19422 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 31, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Absolute madness.

It seems strange that the president has arbitrary tariff powers in the first place: deciding what people pay seems like it really should be a Congress thing, shouldn't it?

What a curse it would be if the only thing the Republican majority in the House could accomplish was "protect disastrous tariffs." I would hope that at least some would know better (as the Democrats will oppose Trump no matter what.)

The hilariously absurd thing is that now that congress has given the exec that power, they have to overcome a veto to get it back.

Same thing happened in 2019 when he couldn't get wall funding from congress, so instead raided DoD (proclamation 9844). Congress tried to reassert spending powers with house joint resolution 46. That passed both house and senate but Trump just vetoed it lmao

Congress tried to reassert spending powers with house joint resolution 46. That passed both house and senate but Trump just vetoed it lmao

Because they didn't attach to a must-pass budget bill.

Congress has more power than they actually use.

And because they didn't give it to him for a limited time in the first place. Congress needs to learn the same lessons about power grants that the English Parliament learned about taxes.

Down thread, @UnopenedEnvilope said that this particular power was delegated to the president by an act of Congress. Maybe this will wake people up to the dangers of Congress abdicating their jobs and giving control to the President, but I somehow doubt it.

Several Roman emperors actually tried to restore the Roman Republic. It never worked out because the Senate didn’t want the responsibility. They preferred to be a bickering social club.

The senate was an advisory body, not a legislative one. The roman republic elected magistrates who then put laws to a vote directly by the people.

Currently, it’s Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

I swear to god if we get Chuck Schumer waving a bill over his head and yelling about throwing the TEA into Boston Harbor, or the Potomac, or yass kween spill the TEA, sis-ing, I'm becoming a monk in the desert.

It wouldn’t take many - I have to imagine a few good men exist in the house and senate who care for country first. The perhaps bigger problem is that the current Democratic leadership is content to watch the world burn to pick up seats in the midterms.

Are you serious?

I think this is the first time I've seem someone suggest that Democrats don't hate Trump enough.

I think this is the first time I've seem someone suggest that Democrats don't hate Trump enough.

This was definitely the meme when the CR passed. "Fight rather than compromise" is the order of the day, apparently.

I think if any republicans try to reign in Trump, Dems know it'd undermine their entire messaging to not join in.

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