site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 24, 2022

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.

20
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Here is one example of the sort I brought up, where someone did not even enter the building.

Couy Griffin. Founder, Cowboys for Trump. Ordered held without bail. Convicted of a charge of entering a restricted area. 14 days jail time, $3000 fine, $500 restitution, 60 hours community service, 1 year supervised release.

There have been several who have been found guilty of felony "obstruction of an official proceedings", when the actual act behind that charge was trespassing. Note this crime was passed as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which was about financial crime; this tells you how much of a stretch that it is. But since the actual charge wasn't "trespass", these cases "don't count".

But since the actual charge wasn't "trespass", these cases "don't count".

That sucks, do you happen to know who made up these rules about which examples should "count"? Whoever they are, I hope they are held accountable.

Not I, counselor. If you read that post my claim is that some rioters who "committed no crime worse than trespassing" are getting harsh punishments for political reasons. And that some did not enter the building. Not "were charged with no crimes worse than trespassing" (since part of the issue is the difference in charges for similar acts). Not even "were convicted of no crime worse than trespassing". And I did not limit "punishment" to the actual sentence imposed; being held without bail in this case I consider punitive.

You responded to this by interpreting these statements in a much more restricted way, declared them false based on a source showing actual sentences, asking why I believed these false things. Well, the answer to why I believe these things is because they were widely and gleefully reported in the press at the time. That March 2021 D.C. Court of Appeals decision that said some non-violent defendants had to be granted bond? That happened because they were, in fact, NOT being given bond.

You responded to this by interpreting these statements in a much more restricted way, declared them false based on a source showing actual sentences, asking why I believed these false things.

You are not being honest here.

My immediate reply was to ask you to clarify what you meant by "harsh punishments". I then showed my work about what I found after a quick search and asked you if this is what you meant, then again asked you for any specific cases you believed met your own definitions. You didn't respond. So my first top level post showed my work again, explicitly stated that I was relying on an incomplete database, explicitly admitted what you wrote could be interpreted in multiple ways, again asked you to provide any examples you knew about. You finally did reply by citing the Q Shaman guy's case, and I pointed out that your original claim appeared to have been much more expansive than just that guy, then again asked you multiple clarifying questions, to which you did not reply. When I badgered you again about this, it was to again ask you how you arrived at your position, and since at this point you didn't seem eager to defend it, I asked if it was actually based in fact. You responded, but not substantively, and instead implied that I would tie you into knots somehow.

Here's another question: What would you have me do differently? When your original claim was ambiguous, I asked you to define the terms you were using. When you didn't respond, I searched for examples on my own and asked you if this is what you meant. I continued asking you to clarify what you meant even after multiple unanswered prompts. I do not understand what purpose your evasiveness serves. If you're unhappy about being misinterpreted, you can't blame it on the guy hounding you for days repeatedly asking you to explain what you meant.

What you wrote directly above actually cleared up a lot of my original questions (finally!) and had you just said exactly this, we could have avoided much of the long and exhaustive trail of ask-ask-ask-ask I left behind. So once again, what would you have me do differently? I'm actually listening.

I posted that you did the exact same thing Nybbler complained about above--looking for charges, not acts, but now that I look more closely at your links (at least the first two), I don't see where you even compared January 6 protestors to leftists at all, with or without charges. "Harsh punishments for political reasons" here means "harsher than the left is punished". You have to make a comparison (and once you do, "don't look up charges" then becomes relevant).

"Harsh punishments for political reasons" here means "harsher than the left is punished". You have to make a comparison (and once you do, "don't look up charges" then becomes relevant).

Edit to your edit: how am I supposed to know/assume this? Besides asking for clarification, what else am I supposed to do here?

He was referring to what the protesters did, not what they were specifically charged with. Even if protesters who did no more than trespass were charged with "Treason" that would not undermine his point about them being treated differently from how trespassing protesters are usually treated. As it happens, what a lot of them was charged with was "Obstruction of an official proceeding", an incredibly broad law created for people trying to interfere with criminal investigations/trials that had never been used in this way before. The Wikipedia article is divided into "Use prior to 2021" and "2021 U.S. Capitol attack" for a reason. And then, even if you think that undermines the point somehow, the specific guy he linked was just charged with "entering a restricted area", which is even more overtly about him trespassing.

He was referring to what the protesters did, not what they were specifically charged with.

I'm not a mind reader. I asked him numerous times to clarify his position. If he chooses not to respond, I can't be blamed for the lack of clarity. I did my part.

Are we reading the same thing? I see:

... many of the "rioters" who committed no crime worse than trespassing (in some cases not even entering the building, just supposedly-forbidden parts of the grounds) are getting harsh punishments...

The source article describes it as (emphasis added): "January 6 defendant found guilty of trespass at US Capitol" and "...Griffin guilty of trespassing...". Even if you want to defy their language choice and stick with strict legal definitions ("It's not trespassing, it's 'entering a restricted area'."), you'd still have to face the caveat in the original comment: it's crimes worse than trespassing that they didn't commit, not just one specific law.

I am not the enforcer here, if Nybbler wants to broaden or modify their original claim that's totally fine! It's just bizarre to lament how something doesn't "count" because of contours they themselves created!

I find it hard to imagine how he could make any relevant statement without saying that the crime had to be worse than something. And anything he used would be a "contour".