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.
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.
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!
User ID: 1827
Is there any evidence that Bowman was facing time pressure? The relevant questions are:
Did Bowman try the door prior to pulling the alarm?
How quickly did Bowman need to get to the house?
Were there other routes that would’ve taken the same time (eg the tunnels) without causing the obvious disruption?
Seems like those should be answered prior to granting Bowman charity. I don’t think Bowman is a high character guy given him almost assaulting Massie so I am biased against Bowman but it still — without more evidence really strains credulity that someone thought “I need to get to the house so let me pull this fire alarm to get out of here faster.” the thought process is just so foreign to me.
Was the door locked? Did he try to open it before he literally pulled a fire alarm?
Why not take the tunnels instead of pulling a fire alarm?
Agreed. Needs to be stopped.
I’ve been in a hurry before. I don’t think I’ve ever mistook a red fire alarm for a button to unlock a door.
This only makes sense in the context the lawmaker tried to open the door and it was locked. Is there any evidence to support that?
Note reports circulated yesterday that the Dems wanted to slow it down a bit to be able to read the CR. So there was motive.
I think it’s fine to think “there is something a little off if someone gets despondent over being preempted on a discussion board.” Look, I participate here because I think the people are interesting etc. But it isn’t like we are competing for Pulitzer Prizes etc. If someone preempted something, I’d think “well at least there is another person who thinks like me and seems reasonably intelligent” and go on my way. Being despondent is not psychologically healthy.
I’m going out on a limb and saying there is no way that happens. You really piss off the black female vote as it is a clear demotion for Kamala.
If the democrats could find a way to dump Biden and Kamala, they would. The problem they have is they need to dump both in a way that it doesn’t look like they passing over Kamala.
The claim “I didn’t realize a fire alarm would set off an alarm” is pretty weak.
Of course, I have a strong prior that Bowman is an ass so I’m predisposed to disbelieve him. But…who has ever seen a red box clearly labeled fire alarm and thought “I should pull this to open a door” before even trying to open a door? No, the excuse is so lame that I believe at a “beyond a reasonable doubt” Bowman did it to interfere with Congress. At minimum, he should be expelled because even if his defense is correct then he is too stupid to be a congressmen.
I find calling Pence or Biden as the most qualified ever pretty funny in the context where Adams, Jefferson, Burr, GWHB, George Clinton, Calhoun, LBJ we’re all VPs.
But to your point, let’s look back to see someone as unqualified as Kamala.
Let’s see. Mike Pence? More qualified. Joe Biden? More qualified. Dick Cheney? More qualified. Manbearpig? More qualified. Quayle? It’s close. GWHB? Not by a country mile. Mondale? More qualified. Rockefeller? More qualified. Ford? More qualified.
So amongst the last ten VP Kamala appears tied for last in terms of qualification.
Justice Jackson actually was pretty light on traditional qualifications (though so was ACB). Jackson was barely a circuit judge. Spent a lot of time as a public defender. There were certainly many more people with a more impressive CV.
Her opinions have been regularly panned by conservatives. Such conservatives don’t that with Kagan so it isn’t the holding itself but how that holding develops.
This is the fundamental difference between haters and proponents of AA (I’m a hater fwiw). The former believes qualification is relative so that if you limit the pool for a feature that isn’t relative to qualification you are incredibly likely to end up with a worse candidate whereas the latter believes qualification is a line to cross and once crossed it doesn’t matter too much who is picked so tie should go to the minority.
I feel like the recent AA SCOTUS justices support my view but YMMV.
Yeah. It is kind of similar to mootness. If you suspect a repeated violation (followed by cessation to render the specific claim mootness) it is still appropriate for a court to rule notwithstanding the general rule.
The first criticism was not criticism of the motte or discussion. It was a criticism that someone would get disappointed that someone preempted their post.
With respect to your second point, scope (like quality) is orthogonal to length. What I think we want is insight; not length.
That isn’t really a response to the criticism. Pure ad hominem. I even understand your position but shouldn’t you hold yourself to a higher standard
But that’s the whole thing — a validation by an assessor isn’t a fmv assessment. It would be akin to the judge stating the value of the company is based off of net equity in a balance sheet.
You can feel that way. Kind of a weird thing to say given that I’ve noted there does seem to be potential fraud here (and have said I believe he is guilty on the documents case). But yeah I’m just a mindless Trump fan boy.
Citing a tax assessors valuation is going crazy because tax assessors aren’t really based on FMV
One I’m not sure there is a duty to disclose a publicly knowable fact. Second, was there an assessment report provided by Trump that stated the value or did Trump merely write a value? it isn’t clear from what you said but it sounds like the latter which means the judge is saying he doesn’t think the value was right because he doesn’t think it properly corrects for land use.
Because we can look at much smaller properties around it and see how much they are worth. So even if per acre / per sq Ft MAL is worth much less it would still be worth a bunch because the amount of acres and sq Ft is much more than normal for this area.
The tax assessment thing is very odd. I learned a lot about it when I bought my house and realized it’s insane.
But I’m not sure your assessment of Trump’s valuation is fraud is accurate. It seems — solely from the comments here — like the judge is making a factual conclusion about the value of MAL and therefore saying Trump didn’t account for the land use restrictions and is fraudulent. Perhaps the judge is simply wrong re value? Citing to the assessor makes me think the judge is just wrong.
Again I think Trump would only be fraudulent is if he told the lenders there was no land use restriction.
Is it your contention that Trump is violating the land use restrictions by living at MAL? If he is not, then it seems MAL has at least value to someone to live there. Given its size and location that means MAL is worth a sizeable chunk.
I know you aren’t from the states so you likely don’t have this local knowledge. Property tax values are untethered from actual FMV. The system isn’t designed to determine the real value of property. If you look at real estate, it is often sold well above the assessed property tax value. Indeed in many places even after a sale establishes fmv the property taxes don’t reset the valuation.
Also, land use certainly affects valuation. If Trump tried to sell MAL what do you think he’d get?
To me, that is the fraud and not the estimates. The issue is since the judge went all crazy on the valuations I don’t know if the rest of the factual record is accurate and don’t really have the inclination to review the record. I’ll just wait for the appeals and see what happens.
Maybe the land is much less valuable but it would still be worth an order of magnitude more than the assessed value.