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 -
So first, this doesn't establish it was based off his speech to begin with, it's a hypothetical. And then it says "Ok but even in the hypothetical where his speech could have played a role, it wasn't a key factor regardless and thus there's little cause to address any 1st amendment claim here to begin with"
No it's not the new standard for true threat, but it is a good showcase of why our currently existing standard is so high. People say edgy things all the time without doing violence.
You're still turning a hypothetical into a clear conclusion that it "didn't seem to based meaningfully off of his speech", which is pretty clearly untrue given that he wouldn't have gotten a visit but for his speech.
And maybe that's still a strict scrutiny-passed tots-reasonable thing for police to do. Or at least close enough that everyone involved gets qualified immunity, and the courts never get around to deciding whether it's 'clearly established' one way or the other. But then we have Ken "violence against not just the government doing it and the private people joining the violence but the soft-target think-tank, media, and academic aparatus that empowered it becomes morally and philosophically justified" White, who already has a history of past mental health episodes, past gun advocacy, and who has promoted the belief that he's being personally targeted by the current administration.
I'm asking whether it's your standard of evidence. Because I can find a lot of people who were involuntarily committed and then, after release, didn't do anything violent; that's a far more common case than serious judicial review.
My point is that people say edgy things all the time without doing violence, and find either the feds or cops at their door with a fancy piece of paper signed by a judge. Not all the time! But again, Ken White isn't some random preteen being edgy on a Fortnite voice chat; trying to reason from the median case is pretty misleading.
And it's not just that he didn't get that noncon overnight stay with the fancy extra-long jacket sleeves, but that no one seems to be acting like they were even worried about it being a risk.
The hypothetical is "Even if the decision was based partly off his speech it would not have mattered", because of the *non hypothetical observation" that it was not dispositive anyway.
Is that the case? I assume he got a visit not because a police officer saw his speech and got angry, but because other citizens were reporting him as a threat and it is their job to follow-up on said reports.
Again, they might have made a bad decision. But given the decision was not dispositive off of the speech, it is like saying that a streamer killed in a swat raid is a first amendment violation because the swatter called in a fake hostage situation over speech disagreement. Should the police have an itchy trigger finger and shot in that scenario? No. But it wasn't because of the disagreement between streamer and swatter. Their bad decision was not in violation of the streamer's first amendment right.
In the same way, the cops here might have made a bad decision. But there is little to no good evidence that the bad decision was an intentional one based off the contents of his speech, as the courts had found and is why they dismissed the claims against Campbell.
We don't even really have to debate this! A bunch of very serious experts looked over the case already and said "nope, it's not a first amendment violation". Maybe they're wrong, but the bar is set ridiculously high now to prove otherwise.
I'm sure there's a lot of BS involuntary commitments. I'm not so sure there's many that are first amendment violations.
Decker did have the feds show up! https://x.com/captgouda24/status/1913249744551367030?lang=en which I think is fine within boundaries. Pure investigations into potentially vague meaning is understandable while something like this which is federal officials trying to chill speech and not just a pure investigation is not at all ok.
I don't know if Ken White did (unlikely it would be feds anyway given that his speech was not at a public official), but it would not be particularly strange if they didn't. People say stuff like that all the time without cops at the door.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link