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 -
No, noticing that the government did not do something that it happily did in other contexts.
Not only does California have a law requiring private businesses to recognize the free speech of their employees, and the NLRB require private businesses to recognize free speech rights about working conditions, the agency review held that federal anti-discrimination law instead required businesses be able to fire him.
As Greg Lukianoff, CEO of FIRE said about Larry Bushart
Now, you not only claim people are being put into solitary confinement and forcibly drugged (as you said both "solitary confinement and involuntary medication" and then also "happily did in other contexts") over legal speech in the US, but that this is apparently not that uncommon. And yet the CEO of FIRE one of the largest 1st amendment free speech organizations around, who has actively worked in the field for 25 years doesn't know about that at all.
Do you have any proof for your claim, or are you just making shit up? Because it sure looks like you are lying.
The funny part is that I agree with Lukianoff on the Bushart case. If the central examples of pro-Kirk overstep had involved jail or police presence, I'd understand and empathize with the response.
But it's not, and not just in the sense that Bushart is the most extreme abuse.
Involuntary commitment to political opposition has the easy, uncontroversial, and high-profile example of Adrian Schoolcraft, though it didn't last 37 days, so I'll give Lukianoff points for stamina there.
Involuntary commitment for pure political speech is one of those places where most of the examples you're going to reject as unverified because it wasn't examined by the courts, but for a good example that was and where the courts later found "the petition [was] . . . devoid of any factual allegations", Brandon Raub. To be fair to Virginia, he was pretty nuts! To be less fair, my comparison is to Ken White.
Involuntary medication... the TopHattingson example is noncentral enough that I'm only going to give it so we don't have someone interject, but yes, I'll admit I'm riding heavily on the 'other contexts' bit, there. Lower courts abusing involuntary medication to the point of violating the law because someone is just really annoying happen.
So if you want a mea culpa, yes, I don't have a good, clear, court-reviewed example of involuntary medication motivated solely by conservative-tinged speech.
EDIT: for solitary confinement, I'll just quote that right-wing nutjob Elizabeth Warren. Solitary confinement might have been appropriate for most J6ers that were confined pre-trial, but the blanket policy was clearly motivated by their politics.
Yes I would if it was just complaints by people claiming something without taking it to the court.
Which leads to an interesting thing here, since looking it up Raub did try to litigate, and failed since the decision to detain Raub didn't seem to based meaningfully off of his speech, even if it was a bad decision.
https://jaapl.org/custom-print/66099
Given the first and main example does not appear to be accurate, the overarching idea falls apart.
To be clear here, that low level officials will abuse the legal process on rare occasions doesn't refute my overall claims, because I'm not claiming it's never happened that some angry police officer wrote a false write up or report or something. Of course it probably has. But those are extremely rare exceptions, so rare that even the (also rare) allegations about it tend to be not be true as we saw above with Raub. And even those are relegated pretty much entirely to small lower level official abuse in personal disputes.
Ken White and Nicholas Decker got the typical response that 99.9% or whatever of edgypushingthebar posting gets, nothing. Maybe a preliminary investigation (Decker mentioned having feds visit him) but nothing else.
Did you just respond to a post where I linked to an actual opinion by linking to a summary of that opinion, in direct-to-print format, which you yourself further misleadingly summarize (from "Even if Mr. Raub's statements were protected speech and a contributing factor to Mr. Campbell's determination that Mr. Raub must be detained, it was not dispositive." to your "didn't seem to based meaningfully off of his speech")? And all to counter an argument I didn't make, since I don't think any human reader would expect me to think Ken White or Nicholas Decker to be harmless or non-paranoid schizophrenic.
It's also not a 'first' example given that it's after Schoolcraft.
You're not doing a great job denying the "powered by a laptop-grade LLM" allegations.
Yes because it's far more efficient to go find a writeup than the whole opinion to find out if the claim is true or not. It is also not misleading, as Campbell's determination was made off of several factors. It was a poorly made decision, but the content of his speech doesn't seem to have been a deciding key element as I highlighted above.
Given that to the best of my knowledge they haven't committed any violence despite the length of time that has gone by, it definitely suggests their statements did not indicate serious intent to harm ala a true threat. Edgy words are not an automatic indicator someone isn't harmless, thus why we have such a high standard to begin with.
Schoolcraft was revenge on him for "betraying" the blue line, not just because they didn't like his opinions. He's not some random guy saying the police suck or something, they saw him as a traitor. It is not an example of speech being targeted, or at least a very atypical one.
Your first and main example of targeted speech was wrong.
"Even if Mr. Raub's statements were protected speech and a contributing factor to Mr. Campbell's determination that Mr. Raub must be detained, it was not dispositive."
[Emphasis added.]
"didn't seem to based meaningfully off of his speech"
Hm.
Oh, is that the new standard? Or is it just the defense you're going to jump to before insisting that only the clearest and most unilateral court ruling counts for anyone else?
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link