site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   36904 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 3, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Take a look at 30.10(g)(4). The question is whether Trump was “continuously” outside of NY.

You could look at a case like People v. Knobel, 94 N.Y.2D 226 which seemingly takes a very pro government lens of what “continuously” outside of NY means.

However, that case provided a particular reason why it concluded how it concluded — the SOL was in part worried about the ability to apprehend out of state persons. It would seem that the most public person in America is different compared to a criminal nobody. Thus, the logic of what constitutes “continuously” for Trump may be radically different compared to a regular Joe because a the facts are different.

But see People v. Weinstein, 170 N.Y.S.3d 33. There, Harvey is well know and only spent 264 days outside of NY during an almost 5 and a half year period. Yet the statute did not expire because those 264 days were excluded from the five year clock. No one but no one believes it was difficult to apprehend Weinstein.

The best case for Trump is probably People v. Seda, 690 N.Y.S. 2d 517. But hard to reconcile that with Weinstein.

I think the Weinstein logic is utterly absurd and seemingly is results based as opposed to legally based. But really negative precedent for Trump.

The question is whether Trump was “continuously” outside of NY.

See my reply to @Gdanning below. Knobel seems to have the same problem as Cruciani; it's about nonresidents.

I am intrigued by the Weinstein case, thanks for pointing it out. The money shot there seems to be:

While defendant does not dispute that he spent 264 days outside New York during the statutory period, he maintains that the toll does not apply to residents of New York and that it only applies to nonresidents.

We disagree. The statute does not distinguish between residents and nonresidents, and had the legislature wanted to limit its reach to the latter it easily could have done so.

But this clearly puts Weinstein at odds with substantial precedent holding that residents and nonresidents are distinguishable under New York statute of limitations laws. I agree with you that the reasoning appears results-based and I'm a little surprised the New York Court of Appeals hasn't made greater efforts to clear this up. Is the law in New York developing toward the idea that statute of limitations laws should not be allowed to interfere with politically important prosecutions?

But this clearly puts Weinstein at odds with substantial precedent holding that residents and nonresidents are distinguishable under New York statute of limitations laws

What precedents are those?

But again, it doesn't really matter, since Trump decamped for Florida in 2018.

It sounds flippant but yes. It is hard to read the facts of the Weinstein case and not think “if this wasn’t a high profile case the result would be different.”

There is no reasonable interpretation of “continuously“ outside of NY wherein a NY resident was in the state for 85% of the time during a 5+ year period but was found to be continuously outside the state.

All the moreso with a highly known fellow.

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