site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29399 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 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.

Cynical read is that Mr Garland is trying to distract the news cycle from talking about Hunter Biden or the FBI.

How long do you suppose an indictment like this takes to put together?

IANAL but my understanding of these sorts of legal processes is that they are much much too slow moving to be responsive to the vagaries of the news cycle.

How long do you suppose an indictment like this takes to put together?

6 - 12 hours.

INAL either but it seems to me that putting together the indictment is the easy part, it's all the discovery, motions, countermotions, and eventual trial that end up taking months or years. Garland doesn't need to convict to get a win here he just needs to give CNN, MSNBC, Et Al something to talk about.

Doing the investigative steps necessary (such as bringing witnesses before the grand jury, litigating subpoenas for documents and other evidence, etc) can take much longer.

Or no time at all depending on the circumstances. Much depends on how much faith you have in the FBI and Merrick Garland to act as honest brokers.

...are you suggesting that the various facts alleged in the indictment (e.g. on December 23rd co-conspirator 2 circulated a two page memorandum outlining a plan for Vice President Mike Pence to declare Donald Trump the certified winner of the election) are invented?

Do you trust the Biden administration not to invent such a thing? Or not to spin it a certain way by strategically omitting relevant context?

Yes. I would bet a large amount of money that the alleged memorandum existed and was circulated on December 23rd, based on this indictment.

I think it's crazy to think that high powered lawyers working for the Department of Justice would not make sure they got easily-tested facts right in the highest profile case of their careers.

Now answer my question.

My answer is that I do not share your faith. I fully expect lawyers to lie and/or omit critical context if it helps their case because that's what any lawyer worth hiring would do. I say this with a certain amount of affection, but I do genuinely believe that the most reliable way to predict a lawyer's behavior is to assume they are a shyster, every last one of them.

What's the old line? Trust but verify?

If these guys get caught lying what's the worst that happens to them? I would wager not a whole lot.

More comments

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