site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   31424 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.

I'm curious what the jury instructions were. Here's the bit of criminal code that covers riots: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch64/

And here's the statutory definition of riot: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch64/sect18-6401/

RIOT, ROUT, UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY, PRIZE FIGHTING, DISTURBING PEACE 18-6401. RIOT DEFINED. Any action, use of force or violence, or threat thereof, disturbing the public peace, or any threat to use such force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution, by two (2) or more persons acting together, and without authority of law, which results in: (a) physical injury to any person; or (b) damage or destruction to public or private property; or (c) a disturbance of the public peace; is a riot.

This quote in the OP's article makes it sound like they were being accused of conspiring to disturb the peace, not to injure someone or damage property:

Ryan Hunter, deputy city attorney, told the court Thursday the masked men, carrying shields and flag poles, planned to storm out of the U-Haul outside the park, potentially deploying smoke and using a bullhorn. They intended to engage in a “tumultuous manner” with Pride attendees trying to enjoy the park, he said.

Here's the statutory definition for disturbing the peace: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title18/T18CH64/SECT18-6409/

18-6409. DISTURBING THE PEACE. (1) Every person who maliciously and willfully disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood, family or person, by loud or unusual noise, or by tumultuous or offensive conduct, or by threatening, traducing, quarreling, challenging to fight or fighting, or fires any gun or pistol, or uses any vulgar, profane or indecent language within the presence or hearing of children, in a loud and boisterous manner, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

I'm no lawyer, but that sounds like the kind of overbroad definition ruled against in Cox v Louisiana: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/379/536

The statute at issue in this case, as authoritatively interpreted by the Louisiana Supreme Court, is unconstitutionally vague in its overly broad scope. The statutory crime consists of two elements: (1) congregating with others "with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned," and (2) a refusal to move on after having been ordered to do so by a law enforcement officer. While the second part of this offense is narrow and specific, the first element is not. The Louisiana Supreme Court in this case defined the term "breach of the peace" as "to agitate, to arouse from a state of repose, to molest, to interrupt, to hinder, to disquiet." 244 La., at 1105, 156 So.2d, at 455. In Edwards, defendants had been convicted of a common-law crime similarly defined by the South Carolina Supreme Court. Both definitions would allow persons to be punished merely for peacefully expressing unpopular views. Yet, a "function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech * * * is * * * protected against censorship or punishment * *. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view.

I'm no lawyer, but that sounds like the kind of overbroad definition ruled against in Cox v Louisiana:

Doesn't matter, because these cases aren't going to be reviewed by a higher court.

Are none of the defendants going to file an appeal?

I doubt they could afford it, and no NGO will touch them

You know, plenty of right wing NGOs exist. And there is such a thing as a defense fund. If everyone here who upvoted OP's post threw in $100, the attorney's fees would probably be covered.

People lost their jobs for donating to Kyle Rittenhouse's legal defense fund, so donating to the defense of actual white supremacists who are borderline neo-Nazis seems like a very risky proposition. Can't imagine a "right wing" NGO wanting to be associated with them either.

It takes a neutral civil rights intermediary like the ACLU of yore to handle stuff like this.

People lost their jobs for donating to Kyle Rittenhouse's legal defense fund

  1. Is that actually true?
  2. I don't know why such donations cannot be made anonymously.

Is that actually true?

Yes.

I don't know why such donations cannot be made anonymously.

Hacktivism. The donation was made anonymously and then exposed by a hack.

Yes Evidence?

Regardless, the five defendants who have been convicted so far have 42 days to file a notice of appeal. And there are numerous other defendants whose trials are pending. We will have to wait and see whether anyone appeals.

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