site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33002 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 17, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Remember the Alt-Right march in Charlottesville in 2017? Feels like forever ago. Today several people were indicted on felony charges for "intimidation" related to the tiki torch march:

An Albemarle County grand jury issued indictments of burning an object with the intent to intimidate.

According to a release, these indictments allege an offense date of Aug. 11, 2017.

The charge is a Class 6 felony and anyone who is convicted may face up to five years in prison.

These indictments are part of an ongoing, active criminal investigation connected with the march and the violent Unite the Right rally that occurred the next day.

There is no statute of limitations on felonies in Virginia.

Here is Section 18.2-423.01-B of the Code of Virginia:

ยง 18.2-423.01. Burning object on property of another or a highway or other public place with intent to intimidate; penalty.

A. Any person who, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, burns an object on the private property of another without permission, is guilty of a Class 6 felony.

B. Any person who, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, burns an object on a highway or other public place in a manner having a direct tendency to place another person in reasonable fear or apprehension of death or bodily injury is guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Apparently this case was the subject of a minor debate in the campaign of the sitting prosecutor and his challenger:

But in Virginia, prosecutors come and go and a felony lives forever. In an October 2019 debate between then-sitting prosecutor Tracci and his challenger, Jim Hingeley, Tracci again scoffed at the idea of indicting these cases, saying Hingeley's belief that it was even possible was a sign he was inexperienced and wrong for the job. A month later, in November 2019, Hingeley won the election. Now it seems he's trying to make good on his campaign promise of proving Robert Tracci wrong.

It goes without saying that this is a political persecution, a few years ago I would have assumed First Amendment protections would still hold even for the far right but I think that ship has sailed. I am confident they will be able to get convictions or guilty pleas for a lesser sentence. Who would want to face five years for holding a tiki torch at a political rally?

A variant of this statute has actually been tested before the Supreme Court in Virginia v. Black. They held that it is constitutional to limit intimidating speech that represents a true threat, but invalidated part of the statute that directed juries to infer intimidation from the mere act of cross burning.

The statue in the Supreme Court case appears to be the template for this one. The original referred to cross burning specifically, this one is more generic.

The Court did qualify their ruling as pertaining specifically to cross burnings and "particularly virulent form[s] of intimidation":

The First Amendment permits Virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate because burning a cross is a particularly virulent form of intimidation. Instead of prohibiting all intimidating messages, Virginia may choose to regulate this subset of intimidating messages in light of cross burning's long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence. Thus, just as a State may regulate only that obscenity which is the most obscene due to its prurient content, so too may a State choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm. A ban on cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate is fully consistent with our holding in R. A. V. and is proscribable under the First Amendment.

A general ban on burning objects, especially objects whose designed purpose is to be burnt, doesn't seem to fit.

long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence

While tiki torches don't have a long history at all of being associated with the altright, I am pretty sure Charlottesville started that association. I've met people in real life mention tiki torches as if they automatically imply someone is altright, and have heard someone say, "now I can't use tiki torches anymore."

If tiki torches are a shibboleth for the outgroup, and the law is just a tool to beat them, then who's to say the tiki torch doesn't have a long pernicious history of a signal for violence? Was there any principle behind the "cross burning has a long history" here? Wasn't it just, "cross-burning is a low-status racist thing, so sure let's punish them."

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