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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
what's the required level of "intent" under the mishandling statute being discussed?
Let's look at Comey's statement or the FBI report. Hmm, Comey finds that Hillary Clinton's handling was "extremely careless." Odd phase in this context. I wonder why he picked it.
During the later OIG investigation, the investigators reviewed various draft's of Comey's statements. A key change was from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless." Why do you think Comey and the FBI went with this change?
Probably because the required level of intent is gross negligence and Comey's statement, absent that top-level edit, is essentially 'Yes, Hillary Clinton committed the crime described in the statute because her intentional plan to at the very least circumvent disclosure laws which necessarily would implicate at least communications about classified information did rise to the level of gross negligence which is specifically described in the law as being illegal, however, no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges for this crime we acknowledge she likely committed.' This statement, a more honest one, sort of gives away what you're trying to hide. Not to mention, another problem is prosecutors have indeed brought charges against people relying on the lower level of intent of gross negligence.
Whoopsie. Now there may be other reasons no "reasonable prosecutor" would bring charges, like the worry they'd end up committing suicide by shooting themselves 11 times in the back, but it sure as shit not because Clinton was only "extremely careless" which is totally different from "grossly negligent." Not to mention a bunch of other edits made by Comey from the original draft prepared for him in order to downplay the breadth of Clinton's misbehavior.
On a side note, I always encourage others to read the OIG reports about these controversies; they always have some of the best facts and rather odd conclusions. Many times they'll weave a narrative of facts to basically accuse the FBI and others of political cover-up or some other corruption scheme, but then step back and let the reader make their own conclusions, and the report is filed away in some basement somewhere and forgotten about.
How is classified information determined in court cases? Is it the mark on the paper, whether something should or shouldn't be classified even if unmarked, whether it was classified at the time of mishandling or at some later point, or is it something else?
We'll leave aside for now the fact the FBI didn't examine the server, didn't seize the emails, and relied on a private vendor to send them a copy of both, or the fact Clinton's team was engaged in a coordinated conspiracy to illegally delete and cover-up the entire ordeal which the DOJ gave general immunity agreements (something near underheard of in federal prosecution) in return for interviews which the FBI agents there noted were just full of lies (lies violate and rescind immunity grants). Even after all this nonsense, the FBI still had to admit Clinton had many dozens of emails with classified information in them, and many more discussing classified information in them.
Huh? It is completely clear that "mishandling confidential information" is a crime if the mishandling rises to the level of gross negligence. Are you arguing it's an element of the mishandling statutes being discussed to prove "the actual threat to national security" as opposed to typically being used in the charging decisions?
Whether any particular set of facts rises to the level of "gross negligence" is what may be unclear, but not whether or not mishandling classified information in a grossly negligent manner is a crime or not because it is. Even the rosiest view in favor of Clinton is still plenty to determine gross negligence.
Let's compare this to your comments about mortgage fraud and donald trump with respect to his statements of financial condition (SFCs). You don't note most of Trump's statements over the decade+ and dozens of commercial transations, loan applications, insurance filings, etc, were not false. Instead, you focuse on the minority of statements which you claim are false, misleading, fraud. In that case, you're completely comfortable that a minority of behavior can establish a pattern of fraud for Trump, but for Clinton it's important to note "most" of her classified communications were fine. Why the different treatment?
looks like basic who/whom
After all, the murderer doesn't murder 99.99999% of the time. Why are you focusing on my honorable, family-man friend who maybe perhaps unfortunately murdered someone when it's only .00001% of his behavior? However, let's talk about my enemy the murderer who killed someone.
More options
Context Copy link