site banner
PaperclipPerfector  19d ago (text post)   32289 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 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.

The Supreme Court orders "wrongly" deported man to be returned to the US

That's a gross exaggeration of the order's actual text.

(1) The district judge ordered the government to "facilitate and effectuate" the alien's return by the end of April 7. The government appealed.

(2) Chief Justice Roberts issued an administrative stay so that the Supreme Court could consider the appeal.

(3) The April 7 deadline expired and became moot. The Supreme Court refused to reverse the rest of the order, but instead merely vacated and remanded so that the district jude could clarify what "effectuate" means, since it "may exceed the District Court's authority" (by forcing the US government to negotiate with the El Salvador government).

The April 7 deadline expired and became moot. The Supreme Court refused to reverse the rest of the order, but instead merely vacated and remanded so that the district jude could clarify what "effectuate" means, since it "may exceed the District Court's authority" (by forcing the US government to negotiate with the El Salvador government).

What prevents the WH from endlessly appealing in bad faith, alternating between claiming the District Court is either being unclear about the meaning of "effectuate" or being prescriptive in such a way that violates the separation of powers? Something along the lines of "Stop paying El Salvador to imprison him; claim him as the USA's ward, upon release from prison; and put him on the next flight to the USA, once he's in custody" should be a reasonable process to follow, but the Trump administration isn't especially reasonable.

Same thing that keeps the District Court from actually being unclear about the meaning of "effectuate" or being prescriptive in such a way that violates separation of powers: the limits of John Roberts's patience. Either the Supreme Court eventually affirms an order for Trump to do something (at which point Trump can either obey or cause an acute constitutional crisis), or it eventually says enough has been done and dismisses the case, or it keeps the case going until 2028.

If the Chief Justice were someone other than John Roberts, who is very sensitive to the incentives to punt thorny questions, their patience might be a limiting factor. Given Roberts's history of punting thorny questions, how is this a limitation?

Then the case keeps going until 2028 if both Trump and the District Court remain intransigent.

And if only the WH is intransigent?

They win.

Cheating is apparently a good checkers strategy.

Read literally, the original order requires the government to send in SEAL Team 6 to perform an extraction operation at CECOT in the event the Salvadorian government doesn’t hand him over in time.

I suppose a court could order the government to request Abrego Garcia back and to stop paying El Salvador to detain him, but beyond that I’m not really sure what they can do.

Roberts is rather pragmatic, and I'm somewhat inclined to believe that at least part of the motivation here is that the judiciary shouldn't be issuing orders that won't actually be followed. Better to issue a stay then find that his orders won't (or can't, given international relations) be followed, and fight a better battle some other day.

Thank you for this summary; the clarity is extremely helpful.

I am usually not a fan of mootness games, or of Roberts' dodging underlying issues, and I have mixed feelings about this one too. But I have to admire his cleverness at avoiding constitutional crises.

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