site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32916 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 27, 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.

Recently the US city of New York, decided that BLM protestors that felt victimized by the police preventing from running amok, deserve 21500 USD (28267877.5 KRW) each.

Such a payout somewhat changes the calculus of participating in protests, peaceful or otherwise. Previously by joining a protest one showed willingness to sacrifice time and risk being temporarily detained.

But now the what the Hot Coffee Incident was in common perception notable for, harm suffered being greatly outweighed by compensation, has come true. Thus making protesting a net-gain, unless one views publicly supporting BLM to be so immoral, as there existing no sum high enough for which one would do it.

In related olds, DisruptJ6 protestors, despite alleging molestation going on for a longer period of time, and interfering with bodily autonomy in much more invasive ways, have yet to be given money.

So, when Group A files a lawsuit and reaches a settlement, some other group which has not filed a lawsuit has somehow been treated unjustly? Perhaps you should wait until Group B files a lawsuit and we see what happens, before you get all outraged.

If we observe disparate outcomes between two social groupings, it's possible that these disparities arise from different behavior on the part of the groups' members. Alternatively, if we also observe that one of the groups enjoys a position of power over the other, and demonstrates strong antipathy for the other, we might consider the hypothesis that the disparities arise from some form of discrimination and oppression.

With a system as complicated as modern society, outcomes are the yardstick by which processes are judged. Failure to design, maintain, and enforce these systems results in people losing confidence in them. Once lost, such confidence is difficult to regain. Priors are established, and shape perception moving forward.

we might consider the hypothesis that the disparities arise from some form of discrimination and oppression.

Yes, but only if the two groups are similarly positioned. If Group A gets $X from the settlement of a lawsuit while Group B gets $Y, the difference might have arisen from some form of discrimination and oppression. But if Group B has not yet filed a lawsuit, the hypothesis is nonsensical, because it is premature. That’s why I said OP "should wait until Group B files a lawsuit and we see what happens, before you get all outraged"

It’s also possible that they don’t file a lawsuit because they know how skewed the system is. In a situation where the groups are already obviously treated differently, it makes little sense to go to the expense of hiring a lawyer. A black guy denied entrance to an elite university because he lives in South Africa under apartheid isn’t going to sue the school for it.

Given the judicial system's response to the letter sent by the Jan 6 defendants, color me skeptical.

Filing a lawsuit is done when the people doing it have a reasonable expectation of winning. I would not have expected to win a lawsuit like the one described in the OP. If right-wing protestors file similar lawsuits, I certainly do not expect them to win. Then too, there is the problem that every situation is perfectly unique. To truly make a claim of equivalence, we need right-wing protestors in the same city, protesting in exactly the same way, at the same time, responded to by the same cops, with the same lawyers arguing the case before the same judge.

Alternatively, people can note that they cannot imagine right-wing protestors being treated in this fashion, and support that argument by looking at the ways right-wing protestors are actually, observably treated, relative to their methods of protesting.

You are appealing to the processes of the system, but people do not trust the system or its processes.

Filing a lawsuit is done when the people doing it have a reasonable expectation of winning. . . .

The problem with this is that it is premised on the conclusion being true. More importantly, that was not OP's claim. And even more importantly, see here. And even MORE importantly, a lawsuit has indeed been filed

I would not have expected to win a lawsuit like the one described in the OP.

Well, it was a settlement, not a win, and the amount settled for was quite small, as these things go. The City of Columbus agreed to pay $179,000 each to 32 protestors. Excessive force lawsuits are successfully litigated every day. That's why there are many lawyers who make a living pursuing them.

You are appealing to the processes of the system

That is not at all true. As I said, we should wait to see the outcome of their lawsuit. I was criticizing the logic of OP's claim, which is las bad as that of a leftish feloow I knew, who claimed that the courts are biased against his group, because the US Sup Ct rejected an argument that a red state's gerrymandering was unconstitutional, but courts held that New York's map was an illegitimate gerrymander. Never mind that NY's constitution explicitly forbids partisan gerrymandering. Stupidity crosses team lines, apparently.

The problem with this is that it is premised on the conclusion being true. More importantly, that was not OP's claim. And even more importantly, see here. And even MORE importantly, a lawsuit has indeed been filed.

I understand the argument you're trying to make, but these seem incredibly bad examples.

Worrell's case is available here. Not everything is public, but the available documents and especially the contrast between the the official submitted timeline and this DoC e-mail exchange don't look particularly good for the DoC. The contempt order was transmitted to the Attorney General for the United States, which received the update... and as far as I can tell, has done nothing specific to this case since.

That could even be reasonable: the government has been making various claims portraying him as a the jailhouse equivalent of a vexatious litigant, though I don't know how much the judge believes that. And given the behavior of the DoC, and conditions involving other people at these jails, it's hard to come to a separate conclusion:

I think, on the first day, he also advised me of an inmate who was a federal prisoner who had sought access to the sick call system for weeks who was not allowed to go on sick call because he failed to complete the form requesting sick call. He wasn't able to complete the form because his fingers were so hurt that he couldn't move his fingers; and two of his fingers had turned black, and he was unable to write to complete the form. So the marshals actually took him up to sick call because he could not complete the form, and that's why he had not been taken on to sick call.

In another instance the Marshal told me -- I think this is only the first or the second day -- that, in retaliation for prisoners' actions, the D.C. staff had cut off the water to the entire pod of the cell block...

And for the first time in the history of our particular Marshal here, our Acting Marshal, they were ordered to leave the jail, and they were barred entry. In his entire career, he has never seen any local jail that ever barred the Marshal from entering the jail, but they were barred entry to the jail. They did not get into a shootout, but they did not enter the jail on Sunday.

Now, that's not Worrell with fingers turning black, or even in the same block as had to be completely pulled of all prisoners. And I hope that the DC Jail victims get some compensation (and some jail officials get some prison time), though from my understanding this can be a bit of a shitshow. But the best he's gotten so far from this was bond and GPS monitoring. Which isn't a small deal! But it does not look like a particularly unusual or severe allowance, either; there's no shortage of cases with far worse than pepper spray getting immediate release on recognizance across the United States, without having to spend multiple months in jail in the meantime.

Quaglin's suit simply didn't survive the motion to dismiss phase, many months ago, and was then mooted by transfers for other cause while he was trying a motion to alter judgement. None of the prayers for relief in the initial complaint (cw: probably a nutjob) involved monetary compensation. I'm having a hard time tracking down the exact status of his case, but it looks like he's lumped under this and his trial may have been delayed by picking a nut of a defense lawyer.

I'm not going to overstate this: these people could be (and probably are) morons on the actual merits. But these are very awkward fits to the sphere of "wait until Group B files a lawsuit and we see what happens".

And the connection to the J6 Defendant Letter seems incorrect. That letter or series of letters was recognized by the courts in September 2022 (see Document 168 Attachment 3, again cw: nutjobs); the Worrell Contempt order was Oct 13, 2021.

Worrell's case is available here. Not everything is public, but the available documents and especially the contrast between the the official submitted timeline and this DoC e-mail exchange don't look particularly good for the DoC. The contempt order was transmitted to the Attorney General for the United States, which received the update... and as far as I can tell, has done nothing specific to this case since.

Well, the claim was that the about the judicial system's response to complaints about mistreatment, so I think that the judge's response is more germane. After all, NYC didn't agree to do anything, either, until after substantial litigation

And the connection to the J6 Defendant Letter seems incorrect. That letter or series of letters was recognized by the courts in September 2022 (see Document 168 Attachment 3, again cw: nutjobs); the Worrell Contempt order was Oct 13, 2021.

Yes, thanks, I misread the date.

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