site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   38925 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.

"CU" = Citizens United? That is not at all what Citizen's United said.

I think you might not have read my link. The solicitor general legit told the court that the gov't could ban books with their interpretation of campaign finance law, and this is considered a pretty big turning point in the case.

Finally, I don't understand what any of this has to do with the Trump indictment. Again, AFAIK, no one is claiming that his campaign bought goods or services at less than the usual and normal charge therefor.

Why did you bring it up then? And why are you still trying to have it be the linchpin of your position? Like, your entire second paragraph is saying that everything is totally kosher specifically because of this. But if this is totally irrelevant, why are you even talking about it?

and this is considered a pretty big turning point in the case.

But the majority in Citizens United barely mentions either vagueness or overbreadth, and even then only in regard to rejecting suggestions that it could save the law through a limiting instruction. Ditto re the book hypothetical; it discusses it only in the section in which it concludes that "the Court cannot resolve this case on a narrower ground without chilling political speech,"

Why did you bring it up then? And why are you still trying to have it be the linchpin of your position?

I didn't bring it up. You did. You said: "Suppose a person is literally just selling goods. In exchange for money, they give up their legal right to that good. This is a quid pro quo, but not one that is of any real concern." And then, "I mean, dis gon b gud to watch videos of the prosecutors trying to make the case to the jury, "So, here's how you make a valuation for a scandalous story involving a political candidate..." Like, how could you even possibly make that case?" To which I responded: "? But,they aren't claiming that she provided services for less than the usual going rate."

Look, as a matter of law, either 1) Cohen's initial payment was a "contribution" that had to be reported, or it wasn't; or 2) Daniels's forebearance was a "contribution," or it wasn't. If one of those was a contribution, and Trump misreported the money paid to Cohen as legal fees with the intent to evade reporting it as a contribution, he is guilty of a felony. If neither was a contribution, or if he did not have that intent, he is guilty of a misdemeanor. The language re providing goods on the cheap is meant to address attempts to evade the law by disguising de facto financial contributions. It has nothing to do with this case. The theory of the case re federal campaign law is entirely different.

in regard to rejecting suggestions that it could save the law through a limiting instruction

Yeah, this is pretty important. Our interaction now is you standing at the Supreme Court, and they're giving you a chance to argue that there is some narrower grounds on which they can rule; that they can preserve something without allowing the gov't to ban books or talking to foreigners. If you fail to provide those grounds, they're going to conclude that it is simply not possible to rule more narrowly, and you're going to lose broadly.

I didn't bring it up. You did.

You said:

Certainly, forbearance of a legal claim against a candidate can be the quid.

But, the obvious thing here is that the quo is the money paid for such. So, similarly to how the Solicitor General didn't proffer, "Oh hey, we can totes ban books," instead it was Justice Alito who said, "Uh, doesn't your argument just imply that you can ban books?" You didn't start off saying it. I just pointed out that your position clearly implied it, and you've been trying to defend said position ever since.

Look, as a matter of law, either 1) Cohen's initial payment was a "contribution" that had to be reported, or it wasn't; or 2) Daniels's forebearance was a "contribution," or it wasn't.

And my response to essentially this way back up was:

Sure, so that kicks the question to, "What counts as a campaign contribution?"

So far, you've been defending the line that "buying a diet coke needs to be reported". If you want to repudiate that line, fine. If you want to intentionally not take a position on what counts as a campaign contribution, say it. If you want to intentionally not take a position on whether either (1) or (2) properly satisfies the definition, say it. Otherwise, actually say what you think the definition includes and why either (1) or (2) falls within that scope.

But, the obvious thing here is that the quo is the money paid for such

No, it isn't! The quo is political favors. "The hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo: dollars for political favors." Federal Election Comm'n v. National Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 US 480, 497 (1985). We are back to the original point that ALL contributions must be reported, because that reduces the risk of the perception of corruption. Not just quid pro quo. So, IF forebearance is capable of being a quid, then it makes sense that is must be reported as a "contribution."

So far, you've been defending the line that "buying a diet coke needs to be reported"

No, I really haven't. That is some weird hypothetical you made up. As I said, if a vendor contracts to provide cokes or food or whatever to the campaign at a price below normal, that is an in-kind contribution under the law, and rightfully so, because it an obvious way to disguise what is in reality a campaign contribution. No one cares if someone gives a candidate a single can of coke, and even if that did count as something that has to be reported, so what? How does that render the law invalid, under any existing jurisprudence? "'The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.'". New York State Bd. of Elections v. López Torres, 552 US 196 (2008) [

The quo is political favors.

So, what is the money that he paid for? Like, when Trump buys a diet coke, it's entirely possible that the diet coke is the quid and political favors is the quo. But then, what's the money for?

IF forebearance is capable of being a quid, then it makes sense that is must be reported as a "contribution."

Exactly. IF a diet coke is capable of being a quid (which you surely have said that it is thusly capable), then it makes sense that it must be reported as a "contribution". Oh wait, that doesn't make any sense at all!

No one cares if someone gives a candidate a single can of coke, and even if that did count as something that has to be reported, so what? How does that render the law invalid, under any existing jurisprudence? "'The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.'

Because it's not just a stupid law. Again, let's go back to CU. The challenge is, "This law seems to allow you to ban books." "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws." Like, no, dude. That's not even in the right realm of response. This law obviously makes so little sense, at least given the way you're interpreting it, that it would pretty blatantly run up against major Constitutional concerns. If you can draw a line that avoids letting the gov't ban books/requiring every purchase of diet coke be reported, then maybe the Court will adopt your line. But simply digging in your heels and saying that you don't need no stinking lines and it doesn't matter if it's stupid, just let us do what we want to do and prosecute Orange Man on grounds that would never fly otherwise and would never be used in any other case... isn't going to get you anywhere.

So, what is the money that he paid for?

? He paid for her silence. It is her silence that benefits him. That is the forbearance.

This law obviously makes so little sense, at least given the way you're interpreting it, that it would pretty blatantly run up against major Constitutional concerns.

  1. It is not how I am interpreting it. It is how the FEC interprets it, in their regulations

  2. What Constitutional concern? Name one, with supporting authority, not one that you make up. Because when the Court says ""The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws" but you say, "yes it does," I am going to think the Court is right, not you.

If you can draw a line that avoids letting the gov't ban books/requiring every purchase of diet coke be reported,

  1. I don't have to draw a line re banning books, because the Court can simply say that the law as applied to book bans, is invalid.

  2. Re coke cans, that is easy: "A contribution includes sales of goods or services at below normal market value, where such sales from a single source total more than $1,000." No free cokes must be reported!

But simply digging in your heels and saying that you don't need no stinking lines and it doesn't matter if it's stupid, just let us do what we want to do and prosecute Orange Man

This is just bullshit. As it happens, my position is: 1) the sole purpose of the prosecution is to enhance the future electoral prospects of Alvin Bragg; 2) the prosecution will help Trump; 3) the prosecution of a candidate for high office sets a terrible precedent; such prosecutions should only be for very, very, very serious crimes.

Anyhow, I still have no idea what your claim is re this particular prosecution. You keep talking about coke cans and books, but what does that have to do with this case?

what is the money that he paid for?

? He paid for her silence. It is her silence that benefits him. That is the forbearance.

Right, and when Trump buys a diet coke, the money is to compensate for the seller forgoing the use of that diet coke. So far, your reasoning still applies to buying diet coke.

It is not how I am interpreting it. It is how the FEC interprets it, in their regulations

Right, and if they go to the Supreme Court and say that they can ban books prosecute people for not reporting their diet coke purchases, they're going to lose.

What Constitutional concern? Name one, with supporting authority, not one that you make up. Because when the Court says ""The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws" but you say, "yes it does," I am going to think the Court is right, not you.

They have ruled that the Constitution only allows them to implement campaign finance laws for the purposes of reducing quid pro quos or the appearance thereof, where one of the quid or the quo is political favors, not just money.

I don't have to draw a line re banning books, because the Court can simply say that the law as applied to book bans, is invalid.

Similarly, the law as applied to simple transactions where money is exchanged for other things (at the normal market rate, as Trump apparently did), is invalid.

Re coke cans, that is easy: "A contribution includes sales of goods or services at below normal market value, where such sales from a single source total more than $1,000." No free cokes must be reported!

Then Trump is probably fine. He paid normal market value! This would be as a matter of legal fact, nothing to do with politics/political motivation/etc. Just a fact about the law.

Right, and when Trump buys a diet coke, the money is to compensate for the seller forgoing the use of that diet coke. So far, your reasoning still applies to buying diet coke.

Except that providing goods and services for below-normal prices is not the only way to make an in-kind "contribution." The rule re providing goods and services for below-normal prices is not at issue here. It does not seem to be the theory being relied upon by the DA.

Right, and if they go to the Supreme Court and say that they can ban books prosecute people for not reporting their diet coke purchases, they're going to lose.

But they are not saying that. You are arguing that the rule defining contributions to include providing goods at below normal prices is invalid, even though it has been around forever and has withstood judicial scrutiny.

They have ruled that the Constitution only allows them to implement campaign finance laws for the purposes of reducing quid pro quos or the appearance thereof, where one of the quid or the quo is political favors, not just money.

Yes, for the ten-thousandth time, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE AN ACTUAL QUID PRO QUO. Avoiding the APPEARANCE is enough, which is why ALL CONTRIBUTIONS must be reported, including providing goods on the cheap FOR MONEY.

Similarly, the law as applied to simple transactions where money is exchanged for other things (at the normal market rate, as Trump apparently did), is invalid.

?Similarly to what? Banning books is an obvious First Amendment violation. Requiring a campaign to report expenditures and receipts is not.

Then Trump is probably fine. He paid normal market value!

Again, the claim is not that Stormy Daniels provided goods and services at below-market values.

The rule re providing goods and services for below-normal prices is not at issue here. It does not seem to be the theory being relied upon by the DA.

....so, for probably the fifth time... what is the theory? Every single time I've asked, you've simply gone back to, "They have to report, because it could be below market value." If that's all you've got, we can be done here.

Yes, for the ten-thousandth time, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE AN ACTUAL QUID PRO QUO.

For the ten-thousandth time, THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID. I said:

They have ruled that the Constitution only allows them to implement campaign finance laws for the purposes of reducing quid pro quos or the appearance thereof, where one of the quid or the quo is political favors, not just money.

If their rules actually have that purpose and are tailored appropriately for it, they're okay. If they're obscenely poorly tailored... like, for example, if their rules allow them to ban books... then it's not going to fly. They need to link their rules, and the purpose of those rules, to reducing quid pro quos or the appearance thereof. Before you again misread this and impute to me a claim that I think they must show an actual quid pro quo, that is NOT what I'm saying, and you're just lying if you impute it to me again.

Banning books is an obvious First Amendment violation. Requiring a campaign to report expenditures and receipts is not.

If those requirements actually touch literally every member of the campaign's grocery bills, I'm pretty sure we're getting close.

Again, the claim is not that Stormy Daniels provided goods and services at below-market values.

WHAT IS THE CLAIM?!?!?!

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