site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   27181 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 23, 2024

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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I have previously discussed why I think the anti-death penalty stance is not just incorrect, but evil. This morning, I have received news that what I consider the most pro-crime administration of my lifetime has done something that I thought was unthinkable, and has commuted the death penalty sentences of 37 of the 40 federal death row inmates:

The move reduces the sentence for all but three of the 40 inmates on federal death row. Biden said that the commutations are "consistent with the moratorium my Administration has imposed on federal executions," with the exception of terrorism and hate-motivated mass killings.

The three people on the federal execution list who were not on Biden's commutation list are Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombing; Robert Bowers, who was convicted of the mass shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue antisemitic attack; and Dylann Roof, who killed nine Black churchgoers in a racially motivated shooting in South Carolina.

I am, as they say, triggered. For an administration filled with pro-crime sentiments and excuse-making for evil people, this probably tops the charts. I am disgusted by Biden's handlers. Here's the list of federal death row inmates. Absolutely none of the usual reasons for opposing the death penalty even begin to make sense for these guys. People worry about sentencing someone that's wrong accused to death - did they get it wrong in these examples?

Convicted and sen­tenced to death for the fatal shoot­ing of a secu­ri­ty guard dur­ing a bank rob­bery. (Co-defen­dant of Billie Allen.)

Convicted and sen­tenced to death for the killing of a fed­er­al grand jury wit­ness in a Medicare fraud inves­ti­ga­tion.+

Convicted and sen­tenced to death for the killing of a prison guard.

They just somehow accidentally tabbed the wrong guy for murdering a prison guard? Really could have been anyone? Or perhaps you're concerned that it should only be reserved for the worst people, which is why Roof has to go. OK:

Convicted and sen­tenced to death for the kid­nap­ping result­ing in death of a 12-year old girl.

Pled guilty to and sen­tenced to death for the fatal shoot­ings of two campers on federal land.

Convicted and sen­tenced to death for involve­ment in the drug-relat­ed killings of a fam­i­ly, includ­ing two chil­dren. (Co-defen­dant of Ricardo Sanchez, Jr.)

I'd love to hear the explanation for the parents of that preteen girl why their child's life wasn't every bit as sacred as the victims of Bowers and Roof. Why does he deserve a commutation? Perhaps it's because she was just an individual, so her life doesn't really deserve to be repaid with retributive justice, in contrast to Roof's victims. On an intuitive level, almost everyone knows that Dylann Roof deserves to die and that the only miscarriage of justice will be that it takes decades of fighting with demonic attorneys to get it done. Somehow, a bunch of otherwise decent people have convinced themselves that while Roof is sufficiently evil that he just deserves to die, there are probably a bunch of other death row inmates that don't. I believe this is because they're just not aware of the facts of those cases. Let's look at one of the commuted sentences:

Jurijus Kadamovas (born October 22, 1966) and Iouri Gherman Mikhel (born April 9, 1965) are Soviet-born American serial killers who immigrated to the United States from Lithuania and Russia, respectively. They are currently on federal death row for five kidnappings and murders. The kidnappings occurred over a four-month period beginning in late 2001, in which the kidnappers demanded ransom.[1]

Documents related to the case allege the crew demanded a total of more than $5.5 million from relatives and associates, and received more than $1 million from victim's relatives.[2] Prosecutors said the victims were killed regardless of whether the ransoms were paid. The bodies were tied with weights, and dumped in the New Melones Lake near Yosemite National Park. Federal prosecutors sought the death penalty under murder during a hostage-taking, (18 U.S.C. 1203), a federal crime.[3]

How many people, knowing that information, would say that it's important for the President to spare these guys from execution?

There is no coalition that I have more sincere contempt for than people that spend their lives trying to avoid the execution of men like Kadamovas. There are so many issues where I grant a difference in preferences, values, evaluations of policies, or genuine mistakes. On this one, I am just sincerely angry at everyone that disagrees with me. The Biden administration has done so many things that I disagree with, but most of them still fall into that category of normal political disagreements. Denying the victims of these crimes the only justice that could have been done is evil.

Doesn’t this create a pretty big opening for the remaining three to get their death sentences overturned on the basis of unfair or prejudiced application?

The power of pardons of the president is unbound. Acts of congress can't restrict it.

The power to commute a sentence is unbound, so outside of an aide dragging Biden's unconcious hand to draw the signature (and maybe not even then), there's no way to put Kadamovas back on the firing line.

But there's a cruel and unusual punishment argument as fewer and fewer executions are being actually brought, under Furman v. Georgia-style logic. I don't think there's five (or even four) votes in favor of Furman's logic today, and there are some process reasons that these particular appellants might not even get to a court hearing... but a lot of reasons that they're still going to spam pro se and maybe even seriously-funded attempts to bring that lawsuit forward.

no way to put Kadamovas back on the firing line

Were there any uncharged murders for which he could still be tried?

Even the most sympathetic court would have to call that double jeopardy. Murdering all those people would fall under the same act framework in Blockburger.

Only two, Nick Kharabadze and George Safiev appear to have been murdered during the same act.

Rita Pekler was murdered while targeting George Safiev previously.

Meyer Muscatel and Alexander Umansky were murdered on different days as part of different acts unconnected to the other murders.

I wouldn't think Blockburger would necessarily preclude now charging any previously uncharged murder.

Under dual-sovereignty were CA inclined surely it could prosecute.

You are right sir, I misremembered. Edited my post.

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