site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   37959 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The whole reason people are raising this as novel is precisely because NYS needs to effectively try a federal crime

No, they don't. As I have said several time, they only need only show an intent to commit a federal crime. Whether the payment (or Stormy Daniels's forbearance) meets the definition of "campaign contribution" under federal law is a purely legal question that is not tried at all. Trump's lawyers will move to dismiss the felony charge on the ground that what he attempted was not a federal crime, because no "campaign contribution" was made. If the judge agrees, that will be the end of it. If the judge disagrees, the jury will NOT be asked to decide whether Trump violated a federal law, but will be told, "if you find that Trump intended to fail to report the payment/forebearance/whatever as a campaign contribution, you must find that the offense is a felony. If not, you must find that the offense is a misdemeanor." They will not be asked to determine whether he actually committed a campaign finance violation.

If the judge disagrees, the jury will NOT be asked to decide whether Trump violated a federal law, but will be told, "if you find that Trump intended to fail to report the payment/forebearance/whatever as a campaign contribution, you must find that the offense is a felony. If not, you must find that the offense is a misdemeanor."

I'm not so certain about this. It is well-established that every element of a crime must be decided by the jury. If intention to commit an a felony is an element of the crime, it must be proven to the jury that the intention to do the action existed, and also that the action would constitute a felony.

also that the action would constitute a felony.

Not if that is a question of law, rather than of fact.

First, there are numerous legal questions associated with campaign finance law. It isn’t clear that a NYS court has jurisdiction to even answer those questions and federal courts can’t give advisory opinions. That is one reason why people are saying this is novel and kind of out there. Second, to answer the question of whether trump intended to break a particular law requires applying facts to a relatively clear law. So what the jury needs is a clear law that is anything but clear. This brings us back to problem 1.

Please stop pretending this is normal course. It isn’t. It is novel. Doesn’t mean it is incorrect but this isn’t down the fairway.

It isn’t clear that a NYS court has jurisdiction to even answer those questions.

Nonsense. As noted elsewhere, courts interpret the laws of other jurisdictions all the time.

requires applying facts to a relatively clear law.

First, you have no idea how clear the federal law is. It might be perfectly clear that hush money payments must be reported. You have no idea what people mean by a "novel legal theory." As noted, based on my reading the supposedly novel part is the use of a federal law as the predicate to make it a felony.

Second, if it is unclear, the court will interpret it. It will decide thatdoing X is a violation of federal law,and will tell the jury, " If you find that Donald Trump violated NY law, you must then decide whether the allegation that Donald Trump acted with the intent to do X, is true." If the jury returns a "true" finding on that allegation, the court will enter judgment for a felony conviction. If they return a "not true" finding, it will enter judgment for a misdemeanor conviction.

You once again failed to support that. You cited a case where there was a conviction in another jurisdiction. You failed to cite a single case where one jurisdiction effectively (ie indirectly) adjudicates a crime in another jurisdiction.

Second screw your condescending attitude. I noted early on the exact novelty you “based on your reading.” I then expanded it to include some reasons why it is difficult here, especially in criminal federal context.

Third, many commentators have noted the campaign finance law is unclear and under developed. I don’t practice in that area but am relying on them.

Fourth, you likely messed up your legal analysis. They can’t enter a misdemeanor conviction because that statute likely has tolled.

I’m doing speaking with you in perpetuity however.

You failed to cite a single case where one jurisdiction effectively (ie indirectly) adjudicates a crime in another jurisdiction.

And you have failed to cite any authority at all for anything, least of all that "indirect adjudicating" is even a thing, let alone that it is an exception to the fact that courts interpret the laws of foreign jurisdictions ALL THE TIME. If you think there is a an exception to the general rule, then it is incumbent upon you to provide authority.

I then expanded it to include some reasons why it is difficult here, especially in criminal federal context.

No, you made unsupported claims to that effect.

They can’t enter a misdemeanor conviction because that statute likely has tolled.

Run, not tolled. Tolled means the opposite.

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