344
Trump fires federal arts board in charge of reviewing White House ballroom and ‘Arc de Trump’
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2025
344 points (99.7% liked)
politics
26349 readers
4033 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Later, you say:
Just say what you think. Asking a question like this when you really have an agenda is an attempt to set up a situation where everyone else has to work to answer you and you invest nothing, and then you get to sit atop the mountain as judge of their answer when you have no skin in the game and haven't done anything to justify your opinion. It comes across as arrogant and haughty.
Look at how this thread turned out: diablexical played your game and you still contributed nothing while remaining disdainful of every reply.
This is why people label this bad faith. It's also a technique widely applied by the far right, so people on a political forum are right to assume things about people "just asking questions" in order to protect their time.
I did: the question. Answer it or don't. No one owes you more.
Don't need to: wasn't stated with a mere question. See how that works? They started drama with their adverse assumptions to try to draw out an irrelevant opinion & you're blaming the other party: hypocrisy.
Again, having to defensively explain ourselves, because everyone is so insecure & bitter is exhausting, and no one should have to tolerate it, so I'm not. Neither should you.
Unwarranted, hostile presuppositions earn contempt.
Their answer (if it has any merit) is the contribution. There is no answer without a question. You're welcome.
Another contribution is judging the caustic ways we shouldn't approach questions. You're welcome for that, too.
That's presupposition. If a question isn't worth your time, then don't answer: easy. Speculatively maligning others with mindreading irrationality is toxic to discussion: no one compels such caustic behavior & it's logically unsound. Imagining that irrationality ought to be the rules to govern discussion is peak reddit, which might be a better fit for such thinkers.
Questions in an online discussion don't need justification. Socratic dialectic doesn’t need "justified" questions: it questions assumptions until we realize our ignorance. Asking uncomfortable questions is the point. I suspect you would claim Socrates & other philosophers who challenged conventionality by relentlessly questioning “obvious things” are “just asking questions” in "bad faith" & therefore they argue from "the far right".
It's bullshit: anyone can & does use the technique of "uncomfortable questions". You just don't like them being asked.