site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32440 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 13, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Remember Seattle's CHAZ/CHOP? After the place was cleared, a bunch of local businesses and property owners sued the city and now they all reached a settlement. One part that definitely didn't help Seattle were tens of thousands of deleted text messages:

The city of Seattle has settled a lawsuit that took aim at officials’ handling of the three-week Capitol Hill Organized Protests and further ensnared the former mayor and police chief, among others, in a scandal over thousands of deleted text messages. The Seattle City Attorney’s Office filed notice of a settlement Wednesday in U.S. District Court, just three weeks after a federal judge levied severe legal sanctions against the city for deleting texts between high-ranking officials during the protests and zone that sprung up around them, known as CHOP.

[...]

Attorneys for the more than a dozen businesses that sued the city, led by Seattle developer Hunters Capital, sent a series of letters to the city in July 2020 — after another lawsuit over the violent police response to the protests — demanding that any evidence pertaining to the city’s alleged support and encouragement of the zone’s creation be retained, according to the court docket and pleadings.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly concluded last month that officials ignored the notifications, sending the so-called Hunters Capital lawsuit to trial on two of five claims and dismissing three others. In doing so, Zilly issued a blistering order that leveled crippling sanctions against the city for the deletion of tens of thousands of text messages from city phones sent between former Mayor Jenny Durkan, former police Chief Carmen Best, fire Chief Harold Scoggins and four other ranking city officials during the protests.

The judge found significant evidence that the destruction of CHOP evidence was intentional and that officials tried for months to hide the text deletions from opposing attorneys.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly concluded last month that officials ignored the notifications

The city didn't ignore notifications, officials did.

Mayor Jenny Durkan, former police Chief Carmen Best, fire Chief Harold Scoggins and four other ranking city officials during the protests.

Don't sanction the city, sanction the people. The city didn't delete texts, people did. Throw those people in jail, fine them until they are destitute, and make an example that misconduct is punished personally.

Don't sanction the city, sanction the people. The city didn't delete texts, people did. Throw those people in jail, fine them until they are destitute, and make an example that misconduct is punished personally.

I completely agree, but Qualified immunity would like to have a word with you. If cops can steal $225k during the execution of a search warrant with no repercussions, what makes you think anything anything would happen here?

Explain to me why Chauvin wasn't protected by Qualified Immunity, then. Or the cops in Memphis.

Your example does little to influence me other than to raise the level of contempt I have for judges and courts. That seems blatantly against the Fourth Amendment, but what good are parchment rights in treacherous hands?

Qualified immunity traces back to 1982, when the U.S. Supreme Court announced a rule that government officials would be liable only if their specific actions had already been held unconstitutional in an earlier court case. They called the new rule “qualified immunity.” The Court’s decision was a drastic departure from the historical standards of government accountability. At the founding and throughout the nineteenth and earlier twentieth centuries, courts simply decided whether a government official’s actions were unlawful and, if they were, ordered a remedy. It was up to the other branches of government to decide whether the official should be reimbursed (if he had acted justifiably) or not (if he had acted in bad faith).

Treacherous indeed. I was going to blame Burger, but he was the only one dissenting.

You're correct to point out that my answer was incomplete. The default state is sovereign immunity, where anything the government does is by definition not illegal or criminal. Of course, governments can choose to waive immunity, which is why people are allowed to sue a city bus for running them over or something. For criminal prosecutions, there is a legal obstacle and a practical one. Sovereign immunity protects criminal prosecutions, as is the case in a recent SCOTUS case involving prosecution of a Turkish bank and as Nicaraguan President Manuel Noriega tried to have happen. Those examples are both foreign sovereigns, and the law for domestic sovereigns is a bit more complicated and depends on the jurisdiction. Sometimes criminal laws create an intentional double standard depending on whether the person committing the act is an agent of the state or not, as was the case until recently in Washington state where a police officer charged with murder required the prosecutor to prove "evil intent" (something not required when prosecuting a peasant). Beyond the state-specific carve-outs, there's the practical reality of governments generally being reluctant to punish one of their own. This reluctance is sharpest with police officers given the intimate working relationship they have with prosecutors. It still happens (as it did with Chauvin) but only in extreme circumstances, not as a matter of course.

Those reasons explain why criminal prosecutions are both legally and practically rare, something which would be politically difficult to change, because why would the government choose to ruin a good thing? At this point the only alternative method of redress if a government official commits a wrong is a civil suit. §1983 and similar laws explicitly waive sovereign immunity to allow civil suits, and made the field wide open. The text plainly stated that any citizen could sue every official acting under color of any law for any violations of any rights. And as relative outsiders, civil attorneys wouldn't have the same reluctance about going after "one of their own". That's at least the ideal, except as you saw, Qualified Immunity has significantly gutted §1983's previously open field to the point where it's functionally worthless.

Qualified immunity doesn't explain the whole story, but it is a significant reason behind the nobility's lack of accountability.

Qualified Immunity has significantly gutted §1983's previously open field to the point where it's functionally worthless.

That seems like a gross overstatement, given the number of lawyers who seem to make a good living filing 1983 actions, including actions for police misconduct.

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