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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Either The Post Millennial is providing a skewed version of events, or a defense attorney just defeated Andy Ngo's civil case against two of his attackers through blatant juror intimidation. I tend to assume the media takes things out of context, especially openly partisan media, but it's hard for me to believe that a lawyer wearing an "I am Antifa" t-shirt every day in court, rather than formal attire, is anything other than a breach of protocol. Maybe the "I will remember all your faces" line was taken out of context, and she was just talking about her photographic memory. Maybe the Post Millennial was exaggerating when they said that the arguments were all ad hominem attacks. Or maybe this really is as bad as it seems.
Regardless, I'm surprised that the Motte isn't talking about the case.
Probably both.
There's not much available through the public court records system in Portland, but this and this, while very overtly anti-Ngo, suggest that Ngo's trial theory depended a lot on attaching personal connection to direct injury that could be difficult in this sort of gang attack. The photos here suggest that Burrows was in (semi)-formal attire rather than actually wearing the shirt.
On the other hand, it's... very hard to have seen even those oregonlive summaries as anything but an attempt to win a civil suit by using the defendants as character witnesses against the plaintiff, in a 'but he deserved it' sense. And I'm not sure Ngo should have even had to prove directly bloody hands, especially in a civil trial; the various tests in the context of mob violence are a mess, but I'm pretty sure they're wider than but-for. That doesn't necessarily mean intimidation, given that we're still talking Portland -- Hacker previously escaped a criminal charge for
theftrobbery on a different occasion in a bench trial.But that option's kinda worse.
I dunno. @FCfromSSC had a post on the broader tactical ramifications from this class of problem, from the context of the Stephen Ray Baca trial from New Mexico. And I don't think any of these are even local nadirs: the end result of the crushing of Christopher Green would have been comedically on-the-nose were Green's injuries more looney tunes and less severe brain damage.
My understanding is that one of the two defendants affirmatively identified Ngo to others, and called for his beating. He was then attacked. Maybe I've misconstrued the circumstances, but it doesn't take much to see how someone whipping up a mob to attack you, after they have identified you, could be civilly liable.
There was no chance of him getting a fair trial, unfortunately. He is hated in Portland and any lawyer worth a damn should be able to stack the jury accordingly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link