site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   31367 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 24, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Patriot Front's Conspiracy to Riot in Coeur d'Alene Idaho

This is another post in what has become a series covering widespread lawfare against dissident-right activists, previously I have covered:

The arrest of the Patriot Front men on their way to protest in Idaho (seen here from their perspective) became a big news story, with the dox and mugshots widely published and applauded, even as anti-hate NGOs admitted that rioting was not the M.O of the group. At the time, even I didn't think the charges stood a chance of going anywhere, even if police wanted to argue for probable cause there was no way a prosecutor would dig a little into the group, see quite clearly they intended to protest in the exact way that have been documented to protest over a dozen times, and then claim that these men came to riot. But I was wrong, and charges were pursued on a single count of "conspiracy to riot."

30 out of 31 members pled Not Guilty and opted for jury trials, 1 member pled guilty to a lesser charge of disturbing the peace and was sentenced to 180 days in jail with 179 days suspended. The first jury trial of 5 members who pled not-guilty to conspiracy charges was concluded last week, where a jury of 6 unanimously found them guilty of conspiracy to riot. They were sentenced to 5 days in jail with 2 days served and banned from downtown for a year.

Having followed the trial in various news stories, the evidence provided by the prosecution seemed to solely entail potentiality, as in "these shields could be used to bash people, and the flagpoles could have been used to hit people from behind the shields." It was noted that the shields the men were carrying had scratches on them and the flagpoles were longer than normal as suspicious, even while the testifying officers admitted that other protestors were open carrying, and it is not illegal to have a shield.

It's notable here that the members were arrested on their way to protest, they did not even have the opportunity to leave the vehicle. All indications are that they planned to march in the exact manner they have done many times before. My confusion, even after following the coverage, is whether or not the prosecution is alleging that this behavior would have constituted a riot, or if they solely relied on speculation for how the shield and flag poles and such could have been used to riot. If the Patriot Front had made it to the park and marched, would they have been arrested for rioting? I don't think so, somehow stopping them before they even had the opportunity gave the prosecution more leeway to plant in the minds of the jury all the things they could have done when they got to the park. It's not clear how this conviction will impact the other trials.

Needless to say, civil rights organizations are not lining up to defend these men (in contrast, the "civil rights conspiracy" Charlottesville lawsuit was concocted in a Manhattan office with a multimillion, NGO-funded war chest, with a lead attorney who compared the lawsuit to the Warsaw ghetto resistance). The PF men have relied on public defenders and faith in the jury process.

FBI Whistleblower Reveals Malfeasance In Patriot Front Trial (?)

The one form of institutional opposition to this prosecution has come from an article published last week by the Idaho Tribune. This trial is only the tip of the iceberg. Not only were PF men arrested, doxed, and charged with conspiracy to riot, but their phones were handed over to the FBI by the State for data extraction. The prosecution claims it cannot present the phones to the defendants in their conspiracy cases, as the State no longer as possession of the evidence. It turns out, nobody from the State ever saw a warrant for those phones before, or since, handing them over to the FBI. Not only that, but according to a whistleblower an FBI SSRA in Idaho was removed from his position because he refused to a sign a warrant for the phones due to lack of probable cause:

“I have friends who are in Couer D'alene who refused to write a Search Warrant for PF [Patriot Front] phones because the PC [probable cause] didn't exist. FBI HQ removed the supervisor from his position.” ...

A second source that will remain anonymous confirmed to the Tribune that Shoffstall was asked to write a warrant to procure data in the phones of the detained Patriot Front members.

After Shoffstall refused, he was punished. Sources tell the Tribune that he was sent on a “special assignment” to work at the FBI’s National Threat Operation Center, which is essentially a call center, where Schoffstall would ride a desk, instead of continuing his work in the field.

The Idaho Tribune was able to speak with Special Agent Schoffstall, who confirmed that he is no longer assigned to the Coeur d’Alene office because he is on a “temporary assignment,” and that he cannot disclose any further information...

In a court proceeding held on Tuesday July 18th, Thomas Rousseau’s public defender Kinzo Mihara vigorously argued that his client should be able to get data from his phone that depicts “the dress rehearsal from the day before” the events of June 11th.

However, the prosecution in all of these cases has not made these phones, nor the warrant that allowed the FBI to perform data extractions on the phones, available to the defense.

Mihara argued saying:

"We want media files from that phone… We have no evidence from the state of what was done, who did it when they did it, why they did it…

“Where is this search warrant? What search warrant? Which judge signed the search warrant? What was the material to be seized, the information to be looked for? Why don't we have it back? In a recent case I have search warrant from here signed by your Honor. It's to seize a black box out of a truck. They seized the black box, they left the copy of the warrant. If you're gonna grab physical items, our constitution demands it being pursuant to a warrant. And the criminal rules, both federal and state, cited to the court demand as copy of the warrant be turned over. We had no warrant from the state and we have no, we have no communications from law enforcement, which another judge in this court, judge Randalls expressly ruled to that. That's fair game. We asked for it. We want it, your Honor. We asked for it way back in February and it hasn’t been turned over.”

IANAL, so I cannot tell how serious this issue is, but reading through this brief it seems Rousseau's attorney is claiming the phones contain potentially-exculpatory evidence and that the State has "parked" the evidence with an FBI based on a warrant that nobody has ever seen and has not been provided to the defense.

The State's argument in this case is dangerous. Any time it wishes to shield exculpatory evidence from a criminal defendant, the State merely needs to have a law enforcement officer "park" the evidence with a federal law enforcement colleague and claim that it cannot produce such evidence ... taking it out of reach of a criminally-accused defendant. This is antithetical to due process and embodies the very tyranny our forefathers saw in their British masters.

In these cases, from what I can tell the public defenders have done a good job and they are receiving a good defense, though maybe not the best money could buy. But I'm not sure what exculpatory evidence could be on the phone: it seems the prosecution wasn't even denying that they planned to march in the way they've done every other time, they were just arguing that their actual plans constituted a plan to riot.

Lessons Learned

So you're right wing, but anonymously shit-posting online isn't enough for you, you want to organize IRL. Maybe you want to march with your friends against a Pride event. Well you better be prepared to be arrested, doxed with your face plastered in national news, charged with a conspiracy, and have your phone be handed to the FBI. Some people on the DR argue that it's an "overly online" movement, but this case shows that IRL activism is at the moment not worth the risk.

Patriot Front has some cringe optics, Rousseau's speeches are really cringe, but if their activism is accomplishing anything, it's exploring the boundaries of legal right-wing expression, which is not where you would expect it to be based on 1A protections.

I want you to know that your tireless coverage of previous issues has led me to assume, prior to reading any details:

Good.

It’s very kind of you to link your previous essays, reminding me of precisely why I was unconvinced. There exists no small injury, only existential threats to truth, justice, and the American way. Truly a terrifying place to live.

Now, reviewing the evidence rather than making a knee jerk reaction, I have to say:

Good.

It’s nice to see the jury system working as intended. Not a hung jury, no technicality. These guys obviously violated the letter and spirit of the relevant statute. A five-day sentence is appropriate for such a mild crime.

The real lesson learned? If your plans for a wholesome right-wing rally includes arming up to beat your opponents…don’t. Problem solved.

  • -32

This is a strategy has been standard playbook by the police in Europe. The police let antifa attack right wing protests and harass them. There is no reasonable expectation for a nationalist group to expect the police to effectively defend them. If the nationalists take measures to defend themselves, then they are arrested for rioting, conspiracy and similar crimes.

That's arguably what happened to the Proud Boys, even though their nationalism was rainbow colored.

Doesn't work, because the media says "good" and slanders you in death.

As opposed to the Romans, who were quite fond of the Christians they murdered...?

At least in some recorded cases the Romans seemed to feel quite sorry for the Christians they killed. There are a bunch of accounts of Roman judges basically pleading with Christians not to make them sentence them to death, saying things to the effect of "listen, nobody cares if you want to worship your god, just go through the motions of paying obeisance to the emperor's genius and be done with it." The Christians would often be given long periods of time to reconsider their obstinacy and save themselves from the lions. The Romans generally didn't see true belief as a necessary component of religion, it was all about the ritual, so couldn't understand why Christians wouldn't just go through the motions like everyone else.

The killing of Aaron Danielson had approximately zero effect on protests in the Portland area. Unless you count the increase from the fallout of the death of his killer during a police incident.

What increase? As far as I can tell, there wasn't even any fallout. I can only assume that local antifa were told by their FBI handlers to let the whole matter rest.

There were a couple of extra protests at Police stations beyond the normal level over the death of Reinoehl. Forgot to add the "minor" qualifier to the increase.

"beyond the normal level"...lol

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