site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34407 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 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.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

both the wealthier taxpayers who largely fund the city's metro system and the urban working poor who comprise practically all who would use it.

Those are not the constituencies of LA. You have to worry about Democrats, not wealthy taxpayers or working poor, and Democrats love to fund homelessness through NGOs, nonprofits, outreach, and other similar grafts. I have no great insight into LA, but if its anything like Seattle, the powers that be would rather declare that secondhand fentanyl smoke is not dangerous than to stop addicts from smoking fentanyl on public transit. Some people actually prefer that they smoke opioids in public so they can be saved from an overdose

"It's important to note when you see fentanyl reporting that you take a really take a critical eye because there is a lot of misinformation out there," said Thea Oliphant-Wells, a social worker for Seattle & King County Public Health. "We're not seeing folks developing second hand exposure, this is just not happening. Not to say that it could never happen, but we're not seeing it."

Oliphant-Wells told Metro workers and riders that it is not a bad thing for drug users to do drugs in public.

"We don't want people to be using in private spaces alone, we want people to be using in a place where if they overdose they can be discovered and helped through that overdose," she said.

I assume LA has an equivalent social worker in an equivalent public health department making equivalent statements, because Democrats seem to be relatively consistent from Bellingham to San Diego.

Then there's the Ninth Circus which said you can't tow people's cars if they're living out of them, which is a whole 'nother problem (Martin v Boise).

Then there's the Ninth Circus which said you can't tow people's cars if they're living out of them, which is a whole 'nother problem (Martin v Boise).

You seem to have linked to the wrong case; that case was re an ordinance making it illegal to camp overnight on public property.

That ruling is the basis for further expansions.

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the federal district court’s ruling that the City of Grants Pass, Oregon, could not, consistent with the Eighth Amendment, enforce its anti-camping ordinances against homeless persons for the mere act of sleeping outside with rudimentary protection from the elements, or for sleeping in their car at night, when there was no lawful place in the city for them to go.

I was mistaking the 9th circuit Martin v Boise for the WA Supreme Court Seattle v Long, which specifically deemed cars a homestead. More here, here. That one was specifically about towing and impounding an inoperable vehicle.

Different rulings with similar effects.

I see. But neither case is authority for your statement that "you can't tow people's cars if they're living out of them." That sounds like a claim that, if I am living out of my car, I can park wherever I want. Which would be very odd.

In the Washington case, the homeless person essentially lost his case: "the homestead act's protections do not apply because Seattle has not sought to collect on Long's debt." In fact, it appears that if the city simply impounded cars parked overnight but did not assess a fee, there would be no violation of Washington's homestead act, whch merely "protect[s] [homes] from attachment and execution or forced sale for the debts of the owner up to the amount specified in the statute." So, it seems that the city CAN tow his car; they just can't charge him for the costs of doing so.

The Johnson case also is not authority for the statement, "you can't tow people's cars if they're living out of them." It simply says that, the rule that the anti-camping ordinance cannot be used to cite those who are homeless when the city has not offered them space in homeless shelters applies to people who sleep in their cars as well as people who sleep out in the open. That should be evident from the quote you include, which is not about parking or towing at all.

PS: Note that these cases are part of a well established line of cases holding that status offenses are unconstitutional, esp where the status is one which is involuntary. Compare Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 667, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962) [Statute criminalizing being addicted to narcotics is unconstitutional because addiction "is apparently an illness which may be contracted innocently or** involuntarily**"] with Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 88 S.Ct. 2145, 20 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1968) [statute criminalizing being drunk in public is A-OK]. Hence, in Martin v. Boise, "Our holding is a narrow one. Like the Jones panel, "we in no way dictate to the City that it must provide sufficient shelter for the homeless, or allow anyone who wishes to sit, lie, or sleep on the streets... at any time and at any place." Id. at 1138. We hold only that "so long as there is a greater number of homeless individuals in [a jurisdiction] than the number of available beds [in shelters]," the jurisdiction cannot prosecute homeless individuals for "involuntarily sitting, lying, and sleeping in public." Id. That is, as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter."

So, it seems that the city CAN tow his car; they just can't charge him for the costs of doing so.

So... they can tow it, but then they have to give it back for free and let him drive away with it as soon as it reaches the impound lot? What would be the point of that? Couldn't he just drive it right back to where they towed it from?

The point is to prevent him from sleeping in it overnight. And who says they have to let him drive away with it as soon as it reaches the impound lot? Hours during which one can retrieve a towed vehicle are generally limited.

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