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 -
The order is here, the motion and relevant exhibit here.
HB1525 specifically spelled out : "That the Department of State Police shall administer, enforce, and otherwise implement § 18.2-308.2:5 of the Code of Virginia from the effective date of this bill." The final judgement from the court specifically said : "The Virginia Department of State Police, and all law enforcement divisions, agencies, and officers within the Commonwealth, to include their successors or replacements in office, are hereby permanently enjoined and prohibited from administering, enforcing, or otherwise imposing upon any person the requirements of, the Act (Va. Code 18.2-308.2:5)." The state is administering the act, and informing businesses using VACheck that they must comply with the law.
There is no appeal; the case reached final judgement, despite Jay Jones' best efforts to illegally intervene before his term began.
How convenient that you never have to even examine claims that might possibly challenge your priors.
What an absolutely fascinating and specific phrase to use, when you specify charges. Is the principle here that the judge would have to use criminal contempt -- the thing he wouldn't be able to enforce against state police administration if Jones is backing them -- rather than civil contempt, before you think it's defiance of a court order? Or that a finding by the court that the state was violating the injunction doesn't count?
If he's actually violating a court order and doesn't fall into one of the various reasons for why such accusations are often bullshit then we can wait and see the contempt of court charges that eventually get brought.
Spoiler, it probably won't happen. Not because of unfair courts, but because state officials actually defying the court is extremely rare and almost every accusation whether against the right or the left is bullshit for some reason or another. There are tons of weird technicalities and abilities to delay and burdens of proof and etc etc etc whatever shit that go into it and generally it's "you don't actually understand the law" or "you don't actually understand what's going on in the case" or "you don't actually understand what is happening on the ground level to begin with and there has been no contempt" and other such explanations.
Yeah it's pretty nice, and convenient, for me that I live in a society where public officials don't typically disobey the court and basically every single accusation that they have is a misunderstanding of something by idiots.
Has he been found in contempt of court either civil or criminal in any way yet? If that has happened, I would presume you would actually say so.
Not "he has been accused of it by political opponents". Or "the judge has weighed in on the possibility" or anything like that. Has he been found in contempt of court?
Does his being found in contempt of court factually change whether he violated a court's ruling?
If not, what purpose does the question serve other than as a deflection to addressing the claims of fact presented and disputed by gattsuru? You are certainly appealing to vague possibilities ('very rare', 'weird technicalities' 'basically every single accusation... is a misunderstanding of something by idiots'), but you're not actually disputing the claims presented by gattsuru. You're not even claiming that your language of frequency even applies to this case- even if corruption of this sort is very rare, that has no bearing on a case that can be drawing attention for being rare. It would be akin to disputing accusations of medical malpractice because most doctors don't commit medical malpractice. The appeal to statistical rarity is irrelevant if the challenge is based on a dependent rather than independent factor.
Gattsuru is making a direct position on a matter of laws and facts here. You seem to disagree. On what grounds that apply to this case? What is gattsuru's misunderstanding in this matter? What is the weird technicality that applies to this case law?
No but being found in contempt of court is a pretty solid piece of evidence he did it, whereas not being found in contempt of court is a pretty solid piece (although not as solid in this direction) that it hasn't happened. The court system is generally reliable.
Now the court system is also slow and it could be that we are just in the period between contempt happening and contempt being found by the courts, which in that case I can update when it happens instead of speculating on a situation where most accusations are bullshit.
Two things are rare.
Officials defying the court is rare
Layman accusations that an official denied the court being true is also rare.
The rarity of the 2nd does apply here, because he's making an accusation that a public official defied the court. But normally such accusations are not true! I covered numerous examples of how this happens in my comment beforehand.
The challenges themselves being true is statistically rare!
It's like an accused drunk arguing the breathalyzer was faulty. That does happen sometimes (it's probably way more common than officials in contempt of court) and it's probably more likely in cases where the accused drunk contests the charges. But it is still also true that the large large majority of the time the accused drunk contests the charges, the breathalyzer was properly working.
So 1. "The breathalyzer actually being faulty in general is rare" and 2. "The breathalyzer actually being faulty when contested is rare" are both true statements! And a person saying "no but my case is special and it was faulty" can be generally dismissed until/unless they can show otherwise.
In court showing otherwise is pretty simple. Has he been found in contempt?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link