site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   30144 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 14, 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.

11
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I hope that you find a way to reconcile your feelings and find peace in this world.

The Babylon project was mankind's last, best, hope for peace. It failed.

Quality contribution right here. Love it.

Sidenote, anyone know where you can stream this nowadays?

It’s on Tubi if you want an app.

For my tv needs I'm using - fmovies . to

Odysee has an insane amount of treasure found on the high sees. Their search feature kind of sucks though, but it's worth a try.

But in the year of the shadow war it became something better. Our last best hope for victory.

I enjoyed reading your posts, and wish you well.

Out of interest in the phenomena you describe: I don't personally relate to this, though. The most fun I've had here in the past week was this exchange, where I poorly expressed an (imo) interesting, entirely non-culture-war concept, which led to a tangential discussion of how good-faith someone was being in a voice debate. The debater I was defending held the opposite of my object-level position. I mostly just enjoyed getting into the gears of some random topic.

More generally, less than half of my comments are directly related to the culture war, and of those that are, probably more than half of them oppose my partisan lean. Most of the posts I enjoy reading also aren't directly culture-war.

My favorite comments to read (aside from 'new true insights') are the ones that capably disagree with me - this often includes pro-religion commnts. While I oppose religion on technical grounds, there are clearly many tensions in the space between christianity and liberal atheism that aren't resolved and should be.

But I do discuss CW topics. So why don't I get heated at all, even though I have very strong views? I'm used to drama tier ironic insults, so partisan overstatements aren't notably high-heat. "Annoying partisan does bad-faith attack" just seems like ... yeah, most people suck at debating, even people who are good at debating still suck a lot of the time, I suck sometimes too, just ignore it and move onto the next interesting post. I try to situate political ideas relative to historical context and their consequentialist impact on society - comparing today's 'bad thing' both to the wonders of modern life and its grand catastrophes (which don't really inspire rage as much as they do quiet dismay). Not as a psychological trick, but as an entirely practical way to understand their impact. Maybe you believe civilization is decaying morally, maybe you believe AI is about to take over - and if these are practical things you're trying to understand and fight in a small way, what about atheist #5 or republican #17 doing annoying response #351 is interesting enough to be mad about?

Hopefully my fat acceptance post didn't contribute to this.

I try to situate political ideas relative to historical context and their consequentialist impact on society - comparing today's 'bad thing' both to the wonders of modern life and its grand catastrophes (which don't really inspire rage as much as they do quiet dismay). Not as a psychological trick, but as an entirely practical way to understand their impact. Maybe you believe civilization is decaying morally, maybe you believe AI is about to take over - and if these are practical things you're trying to understand and fight in a small way, what about atheist #5 or republican #17 doing annoying response #351 is interesting enough to be mad about?

This post actually made me understand some of the points you've been trying to make elsewhere a bit more accurately. I do my best to view events in a historical context as well, but I think some of our prior disagreements stemmed from a different understanding of the significance of certain events and actions in politics.

Contrary to your position, I find the discussion in former Culture War as well as here in The Motte quite valuable, it not only serves as an aggregator of things happening, but many of the phenomena described here helped me navigating real world situations regarding the Culture War like for instance those in my workplace that to my amazement started to ramp up in last year or two. Compared to that, many of my colleagues are like megafauna waiting to go extinct one way or another by stepping on some mine unknown to them. I do not share neither the loathing for denizens of this place, nor self-loathing you display here. And I definitely do not share your view on moral superiority of Scott Alexander and his "niceness" field.

Nevertheless this would probably only "devolve" into another discussion with a loser hater witch that you are no longer interested in. So I wish for you to enjoy whatever comes next. Take care.

I feel the same way. This place is valuable as a sort of internet speakeasy. I don’t think we’re the most rigorous debate society ever, though I think we do fairly well. But what we do well is allowing people to express views that cannot be safely expressed elsewhere. I find that by itself extremely valuable, as so much of society is ruled by nannies who want to silence anything that might hurt feelings. I find that to be extremely harmful because ideas suppressed don’t go away, and some of them might be true. I’d rather face such things head on.

The one thing I disagree with is I am nice on the internet. I would say the same things to people in person especially after a drink or two. Maybe I’m just autistic enough. The one area where I won’t speak freely is on twitter under my real name. For well obvious reasons.

Seems like I got a permaban from Reddit today. So I am retired from Reddit. I guess IP or something but my phone and laptop accounts got linked. And since I’ve gotten a few don’t be evil messages for freely speaking about anti-trans arguments guess I’m not getting back in.

On net my guess is Reddit made the world a worse place. Now I won’t even have a clue how people on the left think.

I find it important to sometimes take time away from all heavy controversial stuff, whether personal or political, and just do innocent stuff that I enjoy, whether that's watching videos of puppies, or reading about sports (which is often controversial but rarely heavy), or watching adventure videos on YouTube, or going outside, etc.

When I am in politics mode, I find myself bouncing back and forth.

First I go read some stuff in mainstream media or Reddit and get angry at the leftoids (the left/right distinction is pretty meaningless but I use these terms as loose pointers). Stupid fucking imbeciles! Unselfaware hypocrites who hide their desire for power behind virtue signalling! Why can't they see what's so obvious to me? Useless swine!...

So then I go to TheMotte or 4chan to get some relief, but there I get angry at the righoids. Dumb, dull-witted morons! Cruel, cold sociopaths! Supercilious geeks with withered hearts covered by layers of defense mechanisms! Fuck all of them!...

So then I go back to mainstream media or Reddit and get angry at the leftoids again...

And then I go back to TheMotte or 4chan and get angry at the rightoids again...

I have a pretty dark sense of humor and can find a lot of twisted shit really funny, so a lot of the time I'm just reading political content and laughing my ass off. I like to go to rdrama sometimes, at least they make fun of both leftoids and rightoids and understand the virtue of brevity, but I usually get tired of rdrama after a while too, there are only so many layers of irony, smugness, and compassionlessness one can endure before one wants to go look at some flowers or just go to the bar and talk to actual people in the flesh.

When my humor runs out and I start to find all the politics actually heavy instead of fun, I know I gotta take a break. Step away, go enjoy sensory experience and be around people, maybe go out and try to get laid... And when I get out and about I am usually reminded that offline, most people actually don't seem to care much about politics, and the ones that do are usually not raging leftoids or rightoids. Well, or they're hiding it, but I think for the most part that's not the case, most people just genuinely are not very gung-ho about politics.

Many have said it before and I will say it again. The Internet really overrepresents the kind of people who care enough about politics to spend all day posting about it. One person who is obsessed with politics will tend to generate 100 times more online political content than the average person. As a result, when you are reading about politics on the Internet, you are not reading a fair sample of the overall population's political thoughts. You are reading, largely, the thoughts of the kind of people who, for whatever reasons, spend a lot of time writing about politics on the Internet.

TheMotte is far from perfect and I can criticize it all day long, whether for the transparent and weak attempts to get around the rules that many posters consciously or unconsciously engage in when they feel like posting a bit of emotional venting disguised as logic and rationality, or for the lack of simple human compassion that I detect from some. But at least here I usually do not immediately get called either a communist cuck or a racist fascist when I disagree with people, so there's that. I think that relatively speaking, and I mean very relatively speaking, this place is still an island of sanity, at least if you compare it to other places where people are willing to openly discuss extremely controversial political topics.

It just seems to me that in the modern world you're given way too much information than you can handle. You receive the news all over the world every day and do you know there's a war going on and here's the latest about that, also someone is dying in Africa due to a military coup, and somewhere is a genocide...probably. Oh and don't forget about the climate change that's going to kill us all....

This information stays with me for days on end. Sure some things I just forget due to not caring or just because the information provided didn't hold in my brain, like I know about the coup, but no more than that and my brain just leaves it as not important. But other things just sit there, and very frequently I just start thinking about them even though I should really finish work on the project (procrastinating is a thing). Sometimes consciously, most times....... it ends up like this. It's like the empty space is running out on my hard drive and I'm just hoarding everything dating back to my childhood and refusing to dump it.

Just feels like humans are not designed for this type of information overload (especially if you can consider it "too much and too fast") and living in the old times was simpler.

We were never designed for this level of information intake. We're designed to live and have relationships in villages of a couple of hundred people max, with concordant gossip. Not drinking from the firehose of social media weaponised to trigger and exploit our emotions.

You can push what you've said further and imagine a dystopian Warhammer 40k type setting where the capital planetary administration receives reports from thousands of worlds of all sorts of unimaginable horrors. Anyone with access to that information stream would have to either become completely emotionally unresponsive or go insane.

I saw an interview with Sam Harris the other day on Diary of a CEO. He talks about how he deleted Twitter and his mental health improved exponentially. It's a common story, but Sam is ostensibly meant to have a strong mind and even he had to take a step back.

Given that you've blocked me and wrote this post shortly after I replied to you, I can't help but feel like I'm one of the people you're talking about. I don't personally feel like an asshole or like someone who has particularly inflexible opinions (outside my bugbears wrt to Russiagate), but c'est la vie. I can't recall getting angry at anyone on here, even if I disagree with them, and I find the argumentativeness animating rather than dispiriting. For the record, there wasn't any animosity or desire for point-scoring in my comments. But then again I'm a poster who cut their teeth on anonymous imageboards, so maybe my own internal evaluation is miscalibrated when compared to the broader internet. I've noticed more of a compulsion to post here in some cases, but the only negative aspersion I feel like casting is that it sometimes feels like the internet points I get from posting is more closely related to the position that I take rather than the quality of my post. That said...

And I myself can identify. I've thought about leaving dozens of times, because I said something that got negative pushback, or was upset by people making strong claims with which I have fundamental values clashes. (I'm sure I trigger the same response in people, and I'm sorry.) Fortunately I have just barely enough sense to stop before I start shouting curse words at people, but trust me when I say I've come close (and that was what I was worried about a while ago when I said I was afraid I'd start breaking the rules). Just recently I nearly threw my computer across the room reading some of the latest threads, which clearly demonstrates that it's not healthy I continue to be a user here. I have never left because I crave culture war content, but I have stopped talking about some of the bugbears for which I have received the least positive feedback, especially religious content.

If you are getting this angry and this potentially violent about words on an internet forum you absolutely should take a break from them and you're doing the right thing. Stress and anxiety of the kind that expresses itself in curse-word shouting and physical violence is bad for the health of the soul and body both. While I would enjoy continuing to read your posts on here(though sadly this seems one-sided), I hope for your own sake that you're able to get yourself into a more stable and healthy position.

For what is worth, I saw nothing extraordinary about that exchange. Thinking about this I maybe do have one obese friend (with BMI slightly over 30) who I really like and who is funny and very good company to be around. But he does not share my interests with other friends in my circle for things like hiking, skiing or even long walks around the city if we go somewhere on roadtrip or whatever. So from my personal experience you exaggerate a bit, but then maybe you live in a slightly different social bubble.

I live in a place that made the news due to how attractive and fit the median person was. So many people were so good looking and in such good shape that it made a tourist from the UK feel bad about themselves when they went to the beach because their relative attractiveness took such a big hit when compared to being back home.

I think it's healthy to take breaks from social media at different points so qdos. I suspect I might be a different age from you because my expectations are very low for this kind of site (at the same time I really enjoy it).

From my perspective any sense of a 'community' in such places is already illusory, which doesn't mean there's not connection, shared perspectives etc but it's not real life and for me it's at the level of infotainment - sometimes very good infotainment, but not really anything to get hung up about.

The best thing about the motte, is the lack of censoriousness. People are free to express ideas people might find odious but that is what free speech is. I'm taken aback somewhat by the views some people have landed with but I'm not adversely affected by them.

Something that shifted for me with 'ideas' was at around age 40 i read some Jung and became intensely interested in the bodily feeling of being triggered by other peoples ideas. I started to actively lean in to this and it has helped me become more detached from various debates because I am also interested in my own thoughts, ideas and reactions and other peoples commentary is in fact fuel for this process. It also goes along with Haidt's moral tastebuds ideas. I may not agree with someones ideas but if I'm not triggered I'm actually in a better place to perhaps see where they're coming from. Perhaps it's an age thing.

Practically and without wanting to sound condescending, I scroll through a lot here without reading much. I'm not inclined to care enough about us politics, HBD paradigms or atheist argument chains. There's also stuff I don't comment on because I have no particular insight but I enjoy reading, such as law, history, economics etc. And then there's a few nuggets that resonate really well each week as well as my own culture war pet topics. I know the sense of despair that people seem so at odds but I guess that's just the world?

On comparison with Scotts community i don't actually believe 'niceness' is a value though it may coincide with one at times. I suspect there must be a lot of interesting discussion wherever he is but am guessing it would be prone to status games and idolatry. The motte is good because it's like that semi-grotty pub in the wrong part of town where you engage, or overhear, people not like you. And I'd warn against people mimicking Scotts style. I see it here often falling flat and adding unnecessary word count.

I was very sympathetic when you wrote your first post, now I'm rather bemused. If you like it here, stay, if you don't, go. If you want to write a farewell post, that's fair enough, but I think you should only get one of those. This ain't an airport, as they say.

I think I also disagree with your main thesis. I can understand the Culture War bumming you out, I've been there, but my impression is that it wound down. This is not the Summer of Fiery But Mostly Peaceful Protests, we're not in lockdown, MeToo is not claiming a scalp every day, and it's a far cry from the fever pitch of The Trumpening. Sure, there's plenty of horrible stuff going on that you can complain about, the ground lost during these peaks of the Culture War is not going to be won back easily, if ever, but the bad juju itself seems to be fading. If I had to zero in on where you have a point, it would be this:

There have been several posts in our history (one very recent) by women interested in the motte, begging for other women who also like discussing controversial ideas to show themselves, please. I suspect the contrarianness, and closely related firmness of opinion and argumentativeness makes it difficult for women to find it enjoyable here. It's not that women don't have controversial or interesting ideas, but that, like me, they are on average higher in neuroticism, and the sort of intense argumentativeness and debate culture you find here can be incredibly off-putting. I know women in my life who enjoy highly motte-like conversations, but who have always found this community off-putting for that very reason.

Ages ago I'd have these sort of political discussions with my brother. One time his wife told me that every time we start she has to leave the room, because she feels like we're about to kill each other. We were just having fun.

I get it, it's not for everyone, and it's certainly no foul that it's not for you. But why do you have to shit on me for enjoying it?

I’ll just take this opportunity to say: not every space has to be welcoming to everyone! And that’s ok! Really!

I think it would be great if more women were encouraged to post here. But not at the expense of changing our existing culture and standards.

I know a woman who might fit right in here, not sure if she's into debating.

Fairly smart, rather fierce (due to size and dedication not a joke martial artist), guessing about 1.5-2sd+ above norm. Stunned me by bringing up eugenics on a date. Also liked to establish dominance with her German shepherds by play biting them.

I fell out of contact with her after dating didn't work out. She did however tell me she'd like having a beer and talking sometimes though.

Was ten years back. Not sure if I should try contacting her. (Tbh I doubt she remembers me, I'm nowhere near as memorable as she was).

My calculation is reminding her off her then offer could, at worst embarrass me privately, but it's really not in my comfort zone.

Yeah, and on the other hand, when in I saw them mention a woman-only forum with motte-ish vibes, my first thought was "What are you doing? Don't mention in publically!". I breathed a sigh of relief when it turned out there's a paywall, and another when it turned it's not anonymous, otherwise they'd be sure to get an influx of guys that would kill the vibe of their community.

Trump has been indicted (again), this time in Georgia, under RICO charges. The charges against him and a large number of co-conspirators relate to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Full indictment here.

We've seen a range of charges laid against Trump in varying jurisdictions, and I think it's fair to say the cases have varying strength. These new charges seem to me to be on the strong end of the spectrum.

Helpfully, the indictment is painfully clear at every point as to what particular acts constitute which particular crimes or elements of crimes. This makes it a lot easier to assess for an uneducated layman like me. On at least some of the charges, it would appear that he's deeply screwed. E.g. "Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer" seems to be open and shut, and carries a minimum 1 year sentence. He also has no capacity to pardon himself if he is elected President, as these are not federal charges.

As far as I can tell Trump's only hope to escape conviction here is jury nullification.

Wouldn't it have been nice if all the indictments were like this.

Note: I strongly dislike Trump

How many times are they going to try this and fail? The Steele dossier was an embarrassment for everyone who pushed it.

I don't know how else to say this but Trump derangement syndrome is a thing (compare similar scandals between Trump and Biden). I've heard people cry wolf too many times to see this as anything other than political persecution.

If solicting a government official to violate their oath of office is a crime punishable by 1 year per instance, then the very second a libertarian government gets in every single democrat and half of republicans will be put in the work camps for repeatedly soliciting politicians to pass gun control and violate their oath to defend the constitution (which includes the second amendment).

Also every single crime will now be a life sentence because asking police officers and judges to go easy on you will now be likewise criminal solicitation to violate the law and not uphold it.

This law is a blatant violation of not only free speech, but the right to petition, it is not on the public not to ask politicians and government officials not to violate their oaths, it is on the government officials not to violate it.

Notably the first president or public official ever convicted in any way related to their oath will not be convicted for violation, which has basically never been adjudicated and has no precedent, not even rank madness like Lincoln bringing in a draft never mentioned in the constitution or the illegally ratified 16th amendment which makes a mockery of every privacy and property right in the constitution or english common law...

But instead the first notable conviction for anything oath related would be of an elected American President, not for any war crime, not for any violation of American's rights, not for corruption, not for colluding with hostile foreign powers (as FDR certainly did with Stalinist Russia), but for asking a state official to review something the state official didn't....

If Trump can go down for this every soul who's ever set foot in DC could be hanged. And I would lead the revolutionary tribunals to do it.

If solicting a government official to violate their oath of office is a crime punishable by 1 year per instance, then the very second a libertarian government gets in every single democrat and half of republicans will be put in the work camps for repeatedly soliciting politicians to pass gun control and violate their oath to defend the constitution (which includes the second amendment).

These are plainly not analogous. In the gun control case, those advocating gun control clearly don't view it as a violation of the second amendment, whereas as I understand it the charge against Trump is that he knowingly advocated an action which would violate oaths of office.

They are well aware via plain reading of the second amendment and any of the surrounding documentation, as their is enough evidence that they did know the text of the second amendment or should have known such as makes no difference.

But even if we allow that by your logic the tens of millions of democrats who have at some point said "The Second Amendment says this, that's why politicians need to get rid of it" Would thenforce be guilty anytime they advocated gun-control, and probably on every individual count.

Think of all the democrats who at some point said something like "the constitution was written by slaveowners, we don't need to listen to what slaveowners wrote about slaveowner's rights to own guns" All of them go to prison under this standard, that's hundreds of thousands if not millions of democrats.

They are well aware via plain reading of the second amendment and any of the surrounding documentation, as their is enough evidence that they did know the text of the second amendment or should have known such as makes no difference.

I think there is ample evidence that a reading of the 2nd Amendment vastly different to that which you advocate can reasonably be taken; even if you disagree with it there is a legitimate perspective that rejects what you consider to be the 'plain reading'. See, for instance, cases like Aymette v. State of Tennessee, which held that the right to 'bear arms' was a political and group right rather than an individual one, such that the 'legislature have the power to prohibit the keeping or wearing weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens', as the 2nd Amendment (and the provisions of the Tennessee state constitution) guaranteed the right to employ weaponry only in 'civilized warfare'. Hence it upheld a ban on the concealed carrying of knives. Also, because it exists as a 'group' right for the 'common defense' only, though the general right has to be preserved 'it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed'. See also Buzzard, City of Salina v. Blaskley and US v. Adams (1935, not 1966). This interpretation is not in fashion these days, but it is clearly a legitimate view, and indeed to my mind a very persuasive one.

But even if we allow that by your logic the tens of millions of democrats who have at some point said "The Second Amendment says this, that's why politicians need to get rid of it" Would thenforce be guilty anytime they advocated gun-control, and probably on every individual count.

I'm not so sure. While I don't think there are 'tens of millions' who would concede what they want is in violation of the constitution (most would surely give some rationale, either similar to the above, or arguing about 'well regulated etc. etc., or simply advocate changing the constitution), the level of 'solicitation' is vastly different between the incumbent President pressuring officials into changing election results vs. a man on the street with a placard in favour of a gun control proposal he deep down thinks is contrary to the constitution.

"the constitution was written by slaveowners, we don't need to listen to what slaveowners wrote about slaveowner's rights to own guns"

I think this sort of rhetoric is more about being in favour of a 'living constitution' interpretation, but either way what I said before still applies; we should hold an incumbent President to a much higher standard on this kind of thing than an ordinary person, as the extent and harmful effects of the 'solicitation' are vastly different.

The law wasn't written for presidents, it was written for the general population. Indeed an individual state would not be able to write a law binding only the president.

Ergo if it applies to him Retweeting and commenting on a news piece, it applies to literally everyone for all political speech.

It wasn't just about tweets, it's about a letter he sent to Raffensperger asking him to decertify the election. Of course the law applies to everyone equally, but not everyone has an equal capacity to 'importune' to the same extent.

Oh, that’s a surprise.

On page 9, the grand jury list, three names are struck out by pen. Anyone know what that means?

Why do these things keep occurring during election years by the Dems and whose orchestrating the conspiracy?

2016 - Spy on Trump campaign. Russian plot.
2020 - BLM. Everyone is racists vote Biden. Plus nationwide mail-in ballots. And a massive plot by the media to deny any narrative in unison that would help Trump 2024 - Charge Trump everywhere lawfare. Create law or come up with novel legal theories to make it happen

Or in Movie Terms Trump: The Russian Agent “Save America from installing Putin in office” Trump 2: The White Supremacists “Save America from Racism” Trump 3: He’s Literally a Criminal

I wonder if some red state can whip up some Rico Charges on Kamela for bailing out BLM protestors. She was bailing out and promoting the cause which was to get her elected while knowing the underlines were committing violence. Maybe everyone in 2024 can have charges pending.

Plus nationwide mail-in ballots.

Yeah, those evil Democrats making mail-in ballots allowed for all in Arkansas, Montana, Utah, Kentucky, Florida, Missouri, West Virginia, Oklahoma...

Biden might be going to get charged for something hunter Biden related.

Give me odds you actually think that and I might take you up on them.

How much do you really believe?

Since it is in fact not an election year, I suspect that one answer to your question is that about 40-50% of America's time is now considered to be "election year" in some sense.

Honestly, your political season is exhausting.

I listen to talk radio and conservative hosts are exhausted by American election cycles and preemptively burned out by the upcoming election.

On at least some of the charges, it would appear that he's deeply screwed. E.g. "Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer" seems to be open and shut, and carries a minimum 1 year sentence

I guess you're easily impressed? Complaining that politicians are violating their oaths of office is one of the most common attacks in the books. There probably isnt a single prominent politician of whom it hasn't been said. This is why we're destroying norms and legitimacy? Ok then, let's see how this shakes out on a 20-year timescale.

Also you didn't mention that these charges were posted on the internet before the Grand Jury had even voted on them, which sort of makes a mockery of the whole pretense.

Anyways, if it's a crime to ask officials to do something that is later determined to violate their oath of office, everyone is a criminal.

Members of the enterprise also corruptly solicited Georgia officials, including the Secretary of State and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to violate their oaths to the Georgia Constitution and to the United States Constitution by unlawfully changing the outcome of the November 3, 2020, 16 presidential election in Georgia in favor of Donald Trump.

Are you joking or something? There's no way I'm reading a ~100 page indictment, but if that is your idea of a strong charge then the rest of it is probably not worth reading anyways.

Have you listened to the Raffensberger call? It's extremely clear (to me) that Trump is claiming that there are many fraudulent ballots in Georgia (he goes on and on about it, and why he thinks so) -- then asks the people on the call to try to locate some of them. It's right there in the first few minutes.

It may be less clear to you for whatever reasons, but surely this is at least a plausible interpretation of what Trump is trying to say -- and if this were the case, he is definitely not asking anyone to violate their oath. Finding such votes would be required by their oath, surely?

I'm aware that the media has widely reported that Trump was asking R. to fabricate some votes so he could win (probably significantly poisoning the jury pool in the process) but presumably the court will hear the actual call rather than reading Washington Post clippings -- and if you think this interpretation is open-shut I really don't know what to say.

Also included in your quote is the request made to David Ralston, speaker of the house, asking him to convene a special session of the house for the purpose of appointing fake electors.

What's illegal about asking the House to convene for that purpose? It's like saying we have proof Trump illegally ordered a Hawaiian pizza, we even have recordings of him requesting one. Ok -- but what about that is illegal?

Trump is charged under OCGA 16-4-7, which says

A person commits the offense of criminal solicitation when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct.

The felonious conduct he is accused of trying to solicit from Ralston is under OCGA 16-10-1, which says

Any public officer who willfully and intentionally violates the terms of his oath as prescribed by law shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.

The oath taken by Ralston includes swearing to support and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution of the United States requires that presidential electors are chosen by the manner directed by the state legislatures.

The elector-selection manner directed by the state legislature of Georgia is described in OCGA 21-2-499, which says

(a) Upon receiving the certified returns of any election from the various superintendents, the Secretary of State shall immediately proceed to tabulate, compute, and canvass the votes cast for all candidates described in subparagraph (a)(4)(A) of Code Section 21-2-497 and upon all questions voted for by the electors of more than one county and shall thereupon certify and file in his or her office the tabulation thereof.  In the event an error is found in the certified returns presented to the Secretary of State or in the tabulation, computation, or canvassing of votes as described in this Code section, the Secretary of State shall notify the county submitting the incorrect returns and direct the county to correct and recertify such returns.  Upon receipt by the Secretary of State of the corrected certified returns of the county, the Secretary of State shall issue a new certification of the results and shall file the same in his or her office.

(b) The Secretary of State shall also, upon receiving the certified returns for presidential electors, proceed to tabulate, compute, and canvass the votes cast for each slate of presidential electors and shall immediately lay them before the Governor.  Not later than 5:00 P.M. on the seventeenth day following the date on which such election was conducted, the Secretary of State shall certify the votes cast for all candidates described in subparagraph (a)(4)(A) of Code Section 21-2-497 and upon all questions voted for by the electors of more than one county and shall no later than that same time lay the returns for presidential electors before the Governor.  The Governor shall enumerate and ascertain the number of votes for each person so voted and shall certify the slates of presidential electors receiving the highest number of votes.  The Governor shall certify the slates of presidential electors no later than 5:00 P.M. on the eighteenth day following the date on which such election was conducted.  Notwithstanding the deadlines specified in this Code section, such times may be altered for just cause by an order of a judge of superior court of this state.

The elector appointment method advocated by Trump obviously does not accord with these requirements.

In conclusion, Trump asked Ralston to participate in appointing presidential electors in a manner contrary to Georgia law, which is contrary to the US Constitution, which is contrary to the oath of office Ralston took, therefore Trump is guilty of Solicitation of Violation of Oath by a Public Officer.

He said it on the phone and everything, lock him up!

You're just criminalizing the First Amendment, obviously Trump has a right to ask officials to consider his schemes, this is a crazy reinterpretation of existing norms that would never be tolerated if the target wasn't Trump. Your argument is inherently contradictory, look:

The Constitution of the United States requires that presidential electors are chosen by the manner directed by the state legislatures.

So, if the Georgia state legislature changed the way presidential electors were chosen, what would be unconstitutional about that? What would he incorrect about Trump asking for such if Georgia had actually granted it?

You can Frankenstein together different parts of the law code to create whatever outcome you want, but the result is still a legal abomination. Trump asked for something we decided was illegal, therefore he cajoled officers into violating their oath of office, therefore, jail! If this really impresses you, if this really strikes you as a sound legal and moral argument, I don't know what to say man. This is a blueprint for destroying democracy, because anything could be defined as asking an official to violate their oath of office. Did you protest against the vaccine, when vaccines are in the public interest, and the public interest is in the oath of office? Did your remarks incite hatred by soliciting officials to [...]? You're crazy if you don't see the implication here, and you're sticking your head in the sand if your only counterargument is to cite more laws at me, as if the existence of a statute is evidence in favor of the validity of your interpretation of it.

Give state officials the power to jail federal politicians for making requests of other politicians, and you literally do not have a democracy. It's just rule by lawfare.

So, if the Georgia state legislature changed the way presidential electors were chosen, what would be unconstitutional about that? What would he incorrect about Trump asking for such if Georgia had actually granted it?

Process, my dude. The legislature of Georgia has every right to change their method for selecting electors. They just need to amend the law. And Trump would be entirely in his rights to ask them to do that.

Trump did not ask them to change the prescribed method for choosing electors. He asked them to violate it. The distinction matters. You're allowed to change the law but you're not allowed to break the law.

This is a blueprint for destroying democracy, because anything could be defined as asking an official to violate their oath of office. Did you protest against the vaccine, when vaccines are in the public interest, and the public interest is in the oath of office?

Which oath of office would that be?

Don't be obtuse, you know what my argument is and you have constructed a technicality that in no way addresses it. Who decides the difference between asking for the law to be broken and the law to be changed? You make it sound as though your problem isn't with anything Trump did, but if only he had worded his request slightly differently, everything would have been fine. Come on, charging Trump with "soliciting" officers to "violate their oaths" is crazy, and the fact that this impresses you makes me question your credibility. Do you really not see any problems with this line of argument? The oath of office is a formality that is never enforced, you aren't worried about any precedents here, any unintended consequences, at all? Not even a little bit?

Who decides the difference between asking for the law to be broken and the law to be changed?

The difference is very clear. There is a prescribed process for changing the law. You introduce a bill, it gets voted on, it gets signed, it becomes an act. You don't just appoint someone as an elector who has not met the legislated requirements, which is what Trump asked for.

if only he had worded his request slightly differently, everything would have been fine.

I wouldn't describe it as "slightly" differently, the distinction is large and important in my eyes. It would not have been the same request. But yes, if he had done legal things instead of illegal things, he would indeed have been fine.

you aren't worried about any precedents here, any unintended consequences, at all? Not even a little bit?

If enforcing the law on a criminal sets a precedent, it would be a good precedent to set.

Now, please answer my question. What oath of office includes "the public interest"? I looked and couldn't find one. I'm sure you wouldn't just make something like that up.

More comments

Trump is charged under OCGA 16-4-7, which says

A person commits the offense of criminal solicitation when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct.

The felonious conduct he is accused of trying to solicit from Ralston is under OCGA 16-10-1, which says

Any public officer who willfully and intentionally violates the terms of his oath as prescribed by law shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.

The oath taken by Ralston includes swearing to support and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

By this logic, every time a President does something unconstitutional (eg, Biden's student loan forgiveness plan), then everyone in Georgia who promoted that policy or petitioned for that policy committed a felony. The prosecutor's use of this law is absolute madness, it criminalizes the losing side of any political battle involving Constitutional issues.

I think the importance difference though is whether those petitioning for a policy themselves know/consider it to be contrary to the constitution, rather than whether it actually is ruled as such by courts. So the point is that Trump didn't care if it was contrary to the constitution, he wanted it done anyway.

Putting pineapple on pizza is a crime against God and Nature (and pizza), and accordingly subject to universal jurisdiction even in the absence of specific local statutory law . I thought this was common knowledge on a forum where high IQ and good taste were the default.

I strenuously disagree with a lot of your political positions but I'm extremely glad that, in the spirit of the Motte, I'm able to reach across the aisle and give you a fist-bump in recognition of your excellent taste in this matter.

deleted

If Trump thinks the election has been stolen, then the electors aren't fake (from Trump's point of view, obviously).

This sounds about the same as the Smith indictment, and is far from open-shut for the same reasons. (mens rea, essentially)

If Trump thinks the election has been stolen, then the electors aren't fake (from Trump's point of view, obviously).

I don't believe this is true. Even if you think fraud has occurred, you can't just appoint electors based on what you think the result would have been. There's a process that has to be followed.

Even if Trump believes that the process has been corrupted, it's still illegal for him to solicit a public official to subvert the process.

By analogy, let's say I buy a lottery ticket but then someone steals it from me. The lottery gets drawn, and I am convinced I had the winning numbers. The lottery won't pay me out based on my insistence that I would have had the winning numbers if they hadn't been stolen. I am not then allowed to rob the lottery office to rectify the theft I suffered - even if I am correct that I had the numbers.

Now, perhaps I am misunderstanding the law in some important way here - I am not a lawyer, and much less a Georgia lawyer. But my understanding here is that the effort to solicit a public official in a plan to appoint electors who could not be lawfully appointed is straightforwardly illegal.

The electors aren't fake either way. They are proposed alternative electors, which is how past elector disputes have been done. There was never any conspiracy to present them as the primary electors.

The irregular Georgia electors submitted a "Certificate of Vote" to Pence's office where they claimed to be the primary electors, as did the irregular electors in Arizona, Michigan and Nevada. The irregular electors in Michigan are being prosecuted locally for falsifying an official document. It looks like most of the irregular electors in Georgia have rolled and are going to testify against Trump.

The irregular electors in New Mexico and Pennsylvania worded their certificates to be contingent on their later being determined to be the real electors, which keeps them out of legal trouble, but means the certificates are less useful for the Eastman/Chesebro scheme to have Pence overturn the election on Jan 6th.

worded their certificates to be contingent

Aha! The whole time I was writing about the Georgia charges, I was thinking “this wouldn’t have been a criminal charge if they’d covered their asses better.” It’s good to know some of the other groups agreed.

I don't believe this is true. Even if you think fraud has occurred, you can't just appoint electors based on what you think the result would have been. There's a process that has to be followed.

Others disagree -- there was an arguably legal path to this, and it has happened in the past. Obviously much depends on the particulars, but criminalizing the advancement of legal theories which may or may not apply in a given case seems like a bad idea. (not to mention conflicting pretty badly with the first amendment)

I am not then allowed to rob the lottery office to rectify the theft I suffered - even if I am correct that I had the numbers.

But you are allowed to write a letter to the head of the state lotto suggesting that they should give you the money -- you can even go to the press and say that's what they should do!

But my understanding here is that the effort to solicit a public official in a plan to appoint electors who could not be lawfully appointed is straightforwardly illegal.

If this is true, then everyone who issued tweets encouraging faithless electors in 2016 is also straightforwardly guilty.

If this is true, then everyone who issued tweets encouraging faithless electors in 2016 is also straightforwardly guilty.

Do members of the electoral college swear an oath of office to uphold the constitution? Does Georgia have a law requiring electors to cast their votes according to the election results? These are serious questions, I sincerely don't know.

If they do, and a person called an elector from Georgia and asked them to violate the law by being a faithless elector, then yes it does appear that such a person would be straightforwardly guilty.

Do members of the electoral college swear an oath of office to uphold the constitution?

No - among other places, this is discussed in Baude essay on Section 3, because it creates an interesting lacuna (a presidential elector who engages in an insurrection is not disqualified from future office, but an oath-taking officer who engages in an insurrection is disqualified from being a presidential elector).

Does Georgia have a law requiring electors to cast their votes according to the election results? These are serious questions, I sincerely don't know.

No - see here (although that is the status now, not as of 2020). According to that map, the only states where being a faithless elector is a crime (and thus the only ones where secondary liability for advocating a crime could conceivably trigger) are both Carolinas, New Mexico and Oklahoma. The more normal approach is to declare the faithless elector's vote void and to allow the other electors for that state to replace them.

In addition, a rando tweeting into the aether would be protected by the 1st amendment in a way that a high government official making a personal phone call to an individual elector backed up by detailed (false) arguments of why the election was fraudulent and vague threats of criminal prosecution for covering up the fraud would not be - the law distinguishes between non-serious and serious crime-encouraging speech.

Thank you!

I find it a bit bemusing when people pose these questions with the implication that if someone in a somewhat-similar-but-somewhat-different situation wasn't charged with the same crime, there must be some kind of corruption or double standard. Most the time it's just that details are different and details matter.

Not sure whether things were much different in 2016, but I do seem to recall some electors not from any of those states being penalized -- it's irrelevant though.

Regardless of which states attach penalties, electors in most (all?) states do in fact swear an oath to vote according to the results in their state -- the debatable part would be whether they can be considered "public officials" -- which I'd argue against, but "parts of this indictment are based on debatable legal theories" does not seem to be holding anybody up in this business!

Anyways, if you acknowledge that certain states would consider faithless electorism to be some kind of crime, even one would be enough -- this was very much a nationwide, organized, and well funded advocacy exercise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election#Public_outreach_to_electors

A conspiracy, if you will! So while random twitterati might squeak by on whatever's left of the 1A, I think your assertion that (say) The Hamilton Electors would be in a different position here than Trump and his cohorts is unsupported.

(I'd say it's actually somewhat worse in that their justification was not "We think Trump committed fraud" but rather "We don't like Trump and want to subvert the will of the voters", and also that they actually succeeded in flipping some electors! At least a few were fined as I recall.)

Biden swore to uphold the Constitution, but created the "Covid" eviction moratorium, which was unconstitutional. If he asks someone to violate the law by preventing a landlord from getting rid of a tenant, is he straightforwardly guilty?

Under OCGA 16-4-7? I wouldn't think so, no. I don't believe that a landlord failing to evict a tenant would constitute a felony.

Was there some other statute you were thinking of? If so you'll need to point me to it.

More comments

On the tweeting for faithless electors that gets a lot of Logan Act vibes. Where if that was a crime then everyone is guilty whoever once tweeted about geopolitics

It's the same principle as - you think your wife conspired with a corrupt family court to take your children, so you forge documentation to get a school to turn them over to you, breaking a court order. Maybe you're right. But there are processes for addressing that, and if you ignore those (or in trump's case try them but perform terribly and don't prevail), you don't have a right to lie and manipulate other processes.

This is a fundamental way modern governance works. The process prevents conflict by giving both individuals and the state a - usually fair - 'final authority' to appeal to, instead of using violence, coercion, or deception. Even if it's sometimes wrong, it's better to have a single source of truth to prevent conflict - whether that's individual conflict over who owns what or who deserves what, or political conflict over who has power. It's known who wins and how that's decided, according to the process and the court, the monopoly on violence enforces it, so nobody bothers to even fight. If you're wrongfully convicted, your supporters don't suicide bomb the cops/accusers and start a blood feud, they collect evidence and appeal. If someone screws you on a deal, you sue based on the contract both parties signed. If you lose an election and are upset, you file a lawsuit.

It could be argued this is a fundamental pillar holding up modern life. I'm not entirely sure - certainly a neoreactionary government would have less of this at the top-level, but that isn't ours. And if the election wasn't stolen (and I'm very unconvinced by arguments that it was), then Trump's actions is not good for democracy.

Maybe you're right. But there are processes for addressing that, and if you ignore those (or in trump's case try them but perform terribly and don't prevail), you don't have a right to lie and manipulate other processes.

This is a fundamental way modern governance works. The process prevents conflict by giving both individuals and the state a - usually fair - 'final authority' to appeal to, instead of using violence, coercion, or deception.

This is exactly what the neoreactionary critique gets at, though. In this scenario, the process is your king; your final authority. And because those processes are carried out by people, ultimately those people are your kings.

In short, this way of thinking creates and sustains an oligarchic form of government. Don’t like the process? Don’t like who runs it? Then appeal. By what means? A process. Who runs that process? You’ve already guessed.

Honestly, I agree with you that this is probably the best way of doing things a lot of the time, as opposed to direct personal power or mob democracy. But this flaw is inherent and IMO when the bureaucracy gets too powerful and too uniform then this form of government starts to curdle.

Who runs that process? You’ve already guessed.

You're allowed to change the people who run the process.

(How? By a process...)

But still. You can indeed change the people in charge and they can indeed change the processes of government. Even if in theory you can get into a closed loop where the people in power use their power to stay in power, that is not currently the case in reality. Although Trump did give it the old college try.

You can indeed change the people in charge and they can indeed change the processes of government.

I thought that's what we voted on in 2016, but instead the people in charge of the process didn't play fair, and instead hamstrung the duly elected executive at every opportunity. The uniparty did not play fair.

Instead the 2016 election remains Trump's greatest crime. He defied the uniparty and must be punished for doing so. I have yet to see anything that contradicts this interpretation, and so it remains the lens through which I view these developments.

Might there be other explanations for Trump's failure than the forces of Mordor using dark plots to defeat our lone hero? Maybe Trump was an ineffective executive with a lot more bluster than execution, who was too stubborn to not commit crimes that didn't benefit him at all?

More comments

Even if in theory you can get into a closed loop where the people in power use their power to stay in power, that is not currently the case in reality.

That’s exactly the point under discussion, no? The allegation from trump’s side is that this has already happened, and that following standard procedure for resolving disputed elections is therefore meaningless because the entire bureaucracy is controlled by the enemy.

Personally, though, I was thinking of the Civil Service, who I very definitely can’t vote out of office. From where I’m standing Britain has been in that closed loop for at least 20 years now.

I assure you that politicians very much do have the power to shut down departments, fire civil servants, etc. And if none of the options on your ballot paper are promising to do that, you can stand for election yourself.

The obstacle you face is not that the civil service is all-powerful. It's that your fellow citizens disagree with you.

More comments

Even if in theory you can get into a closed loop where the people in power use their power to stay in power, that is not currently the case in reality.

Yes it is. The deep state is in power and will forever be in power unless someone can fire 3/4 of the federal government which is impossible due to lawfare. The bureaucracy is a self-sustaining cancer at this point.

While I don’t know that the “oath of office” stuff holds up, I did listen to the Raffensperger call back in the day. Commentary here. For anyone else who wants to read the transcript, it’s here.

Trump was making his preferred outcome very clear. If there was fraud, the President of the United States would be happy. If there wasn’t, he would be unhappy, and some people might face criminal charges.

You can see how this is truth-agnostic. Trump may well have believed it. But he would say the same things whether or not he did. More importantly, he was suggesting what Raffensperger should report, whether or not he did.

Again, I’m not sure that this rises to the intent standard used by OCGA 16-4-7. It is plausibly deniable. I just don’t know how one can read that transcript and come away thinking the guy wanted the truth. He wanted to win.

I just don’t know how one can read that transcript and come away thinking the guy wanted the truth. He wanted to win.

And I don't know how one can read it and come away with the idea that he didn't think there'd been massive fraud -- at least 90% of the call is him railing on about various instances of fraudulent balloting he claims his team had uncovered, and pushing the Georgia officials for data that they were holding back so that he could prove more that he was sure existed but couldn't prove. I'm not sure what evidence you are using to claim that he would have made these claims regardless -- it seems unfalsifiable. New Hampshire and Maine had similar percent margins (and fewer absolute votes) for Biden as compared to Wisconsin -- why didn't Trump try to flip those states too, if he was making allegations unrelated to whatever evidence of fraud that he thought he had?

Anyways my point is that I don't see how anyone can think that this is open-and-shut in anything but Trump's favour -- we are now talking about serious criminal indictments, and this tape surely raises at least a reasonable doubt in terms of mens rea? He lays out all kinds of specific stuff that he (claims to) believe to be true evidence of fraud.

If anything, the Raffensberger call seems like decent evidence for the defense on the Smith (I think? I may be confused now that there are so many) indictment -- it's hard to listen to the guy and believe that he is lying about his beliefs as to whether there was fraud in Georgia (and elsewhere, bleeding into the call). He sounds quite emotional at times.

I do wonder if Stacey Abrams consent decree could fit into this rubric somehow.

Don't forget the Raffensberger call was a settlement conference between attorneys and clients and its disclosure itself is illegal and should have resulted in sanction. It was leaked only in part in order to give the media the chaff to craft this entire narrative. Listening to the entire call makes it clear what was going on, especially given the context of this being a settlement conference protected by the requirement of confidentiality!

They used the settlement conference as a trap in order to get some Trump soundbites which they could leak and then they and the media could knowingly lie about to craft this entire setup.

Interesting, I did not know this! Thanks.

What I find infuriating about this discussion is how often the term "fake electors" is used. If the electors were "fake" and the electors commited "fraud", can anyone provide me with a count of how many of the fake electors' votes were mistakenly recorded in the Senate? Oh, none? Amazing! Well, what kind of detective work went into distinguishing the fake votes from the real votes? Was the Secret Service called in for their expertise in detecting counterfeit money?

Obviously the accurate term should be "contingent electors", in the sense that these would have been the correct electors if Trump prevailed in his various lawsuits. It's easy to imagine that in the case where he was able to establish fraud and the court determined that he had won the election, they wouldn't want the process to get held up by the need to quickly get some electors together to cast their votes and mail them to Washington, DC. The Georgia "fake slate" is dated December 14, so there would not have been much time to get these votes recorded if they had had to wait for all litigation to be resolved.

There's such egregious question-begging going on by calling them "fake electors", it makes me crazy how little pushback I have seen regarding this term.

the Secret Service

Are they…usually called in for elections? I don’t anything about involving them in Bush v. Gore. How exactly do the fraud claims relate to counterfeit money?

This sounds like special pleading.

As is insisting that the violation was justified because it wouldn’t have inconvenienced the poor, suffering bureaucracy. Such policies are tolerated if and only if they make a nice fig leaf.

My question about the Secret Service was an ironic reference to the idea that if the pieces of paper from these "fake electors" were a big problem when it came time to count the votes, presumably because said papers are difficult to distinguish from the votes cast by "authentic electors," then maybe they would have to call in the Secret Service, who are in charge of prosecuting cases of counterfeiting money and therefore experts in document authentication, to help sort things out.

Obviously the accurate term should be "contingent electors", in the sense that these would have been the correct electors if Trump prevailed in his various lawsuits.

If Trump had won his lawsuits with decisive implications for the election, his slate of electors still had to be appointed by the state legislature. In the absence of that, they're not contingent electors, they're nobody. The only contingency is whether or not he won, which he didn't. In Michigan, for example, the fake electors gathered and selected themselves after all the lawsuits had been resolved (not to Trump's favor, needless to say). They subsequently represented themselves to Congress as the true electors from Michigan despite not being appointed by the legislature. That Congress wasn't fooled doesn't make it less a crime, any more than my attempts to shoot you don't cease to be a crime because my gun jams (nor is my sincere belief that murdering you is justified and legal a defense).

This isn’t an apt analogy because the gun not firing was a mechanical issue and you really did try to kill them.

I don’t think anyone believes sending in a bunch of Trump electors would have worked but well got lost in the mail.

Attempted crimes should be punished, but the details of why the "attempt" failed are relevant to determining whether it was a genuine attempt at all. In your attempted murder analogy, yes, you couldn't shoot me because your gun jammed, but if prior to that attempt you purposely manipulated the gun by jamming up the chamber so that a spent round would get stuck in there and be impossible to eject, that would be evidence that you never intended your "murder attempt" to be effective.

The fact that Congress wasn't fooled doesn't by itself make election fraud not a crime, but the fact that apparently Trump tried this maneuver in several states and in no cases were the "fake elector" votes counted, indicates that there is something suspicious about the narrative that he was trying to deceive Congress. Yes, they sent a piece of paper to Congress saying they were the duly-chosen electors and they were voting for Trump etc., but that paper was presented as what it was, an alternate slate of electors. At no point was Pence saying, "well, now I have no idea which ones are the real votes!"

Ineptitude is not a defense.

the fact that apparently Trump tried this maneuver in several states and in no cases were the "fake elector" votes counted, indicates that there is something suspicious about the narrative that he was trying to deceive Congress.

That his deceit attempts were transparently absurd?

can anyone provide me with a count of how many of the fake electors' votes were mistakenly recorded in the Senate?

I think the idea is that they were in a conspiracy to commit fraud, one is still guilty even if one fails. But more importantly, the fraud laws I have seen always require deception. In what way were these "fake" electors trying to deceive anyone?

The Georgia indictment includes a charge of Conspiracy to Defraud the State, but it doesn't directly relate to the false elector scheme. It relates to the plan to steal voter data.

Deception is not an element of the relevant offence, found in OCGA 16-10-21:

A person commits the offense of conspiracy to defraud the state when he conspires or agrees with another to commit theft of any property which belongs to the state or to any agency thereof or which is under the control or possession of a state officer or employee in his official capacity. The crime shall be complete when the conspiracy or agreement is effected and an overt act in furtherance thereof has been committed, regardless of whether the theft is consummated. A person convicted of the offense of conspiracy to defraud the state shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.

You're probably thinking of last week's indictment. That does have fraud charges relating to the false elector scheme. I don't think deception is an element of those offences either, but I haven't gone back to check.

I can't imagine a definition of fraud that wouldn't involve some kind of deception. Merriam-Webster:

1a : DECEIT, TRICKERY

specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right

I literally just quoted a legal definition that does not include deceit. If you can't imagine it after having it placed right in front of your eyes, that's a truly profound failure of imagination.

Technically I said fraud not defraud, so that makes me the best kind of correct. Here is the relevant Georgia law, since you are a big fan.

That said, as humorous as you are, you are still wrong. What do you think is involved in the theft? Let's use our imaginations and imagine that Donald Trump says to the official who controls election data, "hey, it's me, Donald Trump, your favorite president. Way better than Carter, obviously. Anyway, I suspect there was fraud in your state, so I need access to your voter data, please send it to me by December 1st." If the official then sends Trump the election data, do you think he would be guilty of theft?

I'm going to skip the part where you answer. The only way Trump and his allies "defrauded the state" in the case at hand is if they falsely claimed that they had the right to voter data.

I guess if they tried to hack the polls or something.

Technically I said fraud not defraud, so that makes me the best kind of correct. Here is the relevant Georgia law, since you are a big fan.

How is that law in any way relevant? Neither Trump nor his co-conspirators have been charged with it.

I'm going to skip the part where you answer. The only way Trump and his allies "defrauded the state" in the case at hand is if they falsely claimed that they had the right to voter data.

I am once again begging you to read the actual statute.

They are guilty of conspiracy to defraud the state if they agree to steal something and commit an overt act in the furtherance of the conspiracy. It's got nothing to do with what they claim or don't claim.

The first person to use the word fraud (without de-) was you. You stated that you didn’t think deception was an element. I commented that fraud would seem to always involve deception. That’s why it’s relevant.

I’ll ask you once again to consider the method by which Trump stole the relevant voter data. It involved lying. A lot. Do you think Trump would have been charged with theft if his claims about the election had been true? The indictment sure makes it seem like the fact he was lying is relevant.

Also, stepping back for a second, there are so many counts in the indictment related to forgery, false documents, and false statements, I don’t know how you managed to start a debate over the one count that (arguably, in your opinion) doesn’t involve deception.

More comments

How are they not fake? Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the US Constitution:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Now let’s see the manner the Georgia Legislature has directed electors be appointed. Georgia Code Title 21. Elections § 21-2-499. I won’t quote it here, but the Georgia Secretary of State counts the votes, and the governor certifies the electors for the candidate who got the most votes. The governor certified Joe Biden’s electors on November 20th.

When the Trump electors got together on December 14 and stated, “WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, being the duly elected and qualified Electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of Georgia, do hereby certify the following:” they LIED. They were not the duly elected and qualified electors. It was public knowledge that the duly elected and qualified electors had been chosen on November 20. Despite this, they mailed the “certification” to the US Government. They also identified the “certification” as being mailed per 3 USC 11, which pertains specifically to presidential elector certificates.

I’m really at a loss here. Do you have some metaphysical objection to the entire concept of “fake electors”? If Donald Trump personally spent the entire early voting period in Georgia driving around to various polling locations and voting in the name of dead people still on the rolls would you concede that he committed fraud to steal the election, or would you say he was just using all of his options to contest what he sees as an unfair process?

the Georgia Secretary of State counts the votes, and the governor certifies the electors for the candidate who got the most votes. The governor certified Joe Biden’s electors on November 20th.

Interesting that these people didn't commit a crime for certifying an election when the number of illegally cast votes was known to exceed the margin of victory.

they LIED. They were not the duly elected and qualified electors. It was public knowledge that the duly elected and qualified electors had been chosen on November 20.

You understand that lying involves more than just uttering a false statement, right? Merriam Webster says: "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive". No intent to deceive, therefore not a lie. As to your question "How are they not fake?" Same answer. No intent to deceive.

I think lying is probably the wrong word, as is fake. The people signing this document as far as I can tell we’re, at worst, an alternative slate of electors choosing to take this action because they believe the Georgia election was fraudulent in a way that falsely handed the win to Biden. The reason I object to the terms “lying” and “fake”, is that they assume the conclusion— they assume there was no fraud and thus anyone doing anything on the assumption of that fraud is lying. Keep in mind, Trumps claims never got any sort of hearing, most being summarily dismissed on standings issues. In other words, these guys are trying to rectify a situation where they believe the wrong results were certified and thus it might be dishonest, but I don’t see it as fake and they aren’t necessarily lying.

I think they are lying because even if there was fraud - which there wasn't - that still wouldn't make them the 'duly elected and qualified' electors, because the process for choosing those is clearly set out and they did not satisfy it. They weren't just saying we ought to be the electors, which would be fine and expected from someone who believed there was fraud, but that they were the electors, which is simply false from any perspective - or at least that's how I understand it.

Isn't a really trivial analogy here a sovereign citizen making a false statement to a court about some procedural matter that he believes to be true due to his tortured interpretations of the law but is, as a matter of words and objets as the court would understand, false? Like (meh example) claiming they're a law enforcement officer when they aren't because they were deputized by themselves as a citizen or something.

It's the same with the phrase "Overturning the election". When the media declared Biden the winner, the election was over, apparently, so all of Trump's efforts to contest the election get called "overturning the election". They can never concede that Trump genuinely believed himself wronged, that filing lawsuits and contesting results is normal. So Trump never "contested" the election, he always "attempted to overturn" it.

Coverage around the election was better at first. Even NBC.

By December, when the legal battles are falling apart, it starts to be called overturning. Possibly because of the “safe haven” limit, December 8th, and of course the actual certification on the 14th. Some outlets were sticki by with “contest,” though. Then the Capitol riots really turn media opinion.

Just going to post the usual "it's never rico" article here https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/

As far as I can tell, unless the defendant is literally the mafia, rico charges always get laughed out of court. Seems like these are the weakest of all the Trumped up charges so far.

Sorry to come back to this comment but I just saw this video and had to share it.

The article, entertaining though it is, appears to be aimed at dumb civil plaintiffs. A DA bringing criminal charges, one would hope, would exhibit a higher level of sophistication.

This DA in particular appears to have a history of bringing successful RICO charges, including against non-mafia targets.

Georgia's RICO law is supposedly also broader than its federal equivalent, though I'm not going to pretend I understand the differences.

As Ken noted a day ago, this is georgia RICO, and his claim is scoped to federal RICO! It's a great article though.

I've been thinking a lot recently about fundamental tensions, dualities, dialectics, how these map onto each other and relate to our societies, cultures, politics and secular cycles.

Bear with me a moment, I know this is abstract. But I think it provides a useful map for thinking about many issues, no matter which side you are on.

Consider a binary that we find very much in the news, culture and politics of the day, sex. Male-female is the binary, but there's a lot of definitional games being played. This binary is the poles of a fundamental tension, with a spectrum of related tensions in complicated combinations. But just think quickly on the issues of the day, and you can map that tension onto pretty much anything. In politics, which is “male” R or D? Hot or cold? Light or dark? Gay or straight? Drugs or prohibition? Guns or not? Notice the issues do not track cleanly, because both sides of any binary have a range of variability and expression for the same aspect. So, prohibition tracks female, which tracks D, but democrats generally support more drugs (but not tobacco). And male tracks R tracks guns, but prohibition on drugs, which tracks female. One side expresses their freedom in economics, the other in sex. One side demands order for the border, the other demands order in DC. Everyone is in tension, and so are our groups.

Thesis: This duality and how it resolves onto the issues of our day and the circumstances of our lives are a good descriptor for who we are, why we believe what we do, have the politics we have. I believe this helps us to understand why other people disagree with us, when we are clearly right about everything. The failure modes of these dualities explain the suffering experienced by the sentient in virtually all modes of life, no matter how objectively comfortable.

This extends to genetics itself (nature/nurture), primal forces (life/death, chaos/order, pleasure/suffering, violence/peace) and personal psychology and philosophy. It reaches into our very conceptions of these ideas, rationality vs irrationality.

Consider the subreddit AITA. What's the appeal here? It's weirdly attractive, tons of comments, shit flying everywhere. It allows people to see two "films" and argue for their conception. We have news silos because we are all practicing to do this. To see a situation and judge it by our lights, and then go forth to do battle with those on the opposing side. Goes for social media pile-ons and cancel culture, sports talk radio and small town gossip trains.

Hey there sportsfans, how about Coach Chucky? Is he a moron or what? Phone lines are open, call now.

Hey there Conservatives, how about this tranny reading to kids, whaddaya make of that shit? Isn't that weird and creepy? Donate money to me to keep telling you how nuts Liberals are!

Hey there Liberals, how about Current Republican having the same border policies as Previous Democrat? KIDS IN CagES!!!!!

The reality is that every duality has a fundamental legitimacy to it. Individuals have different ideas about exactly which values they hold on which scales of which issues.

Let's consider the two human archetypes by pole of duality. This is in no way determinative, as there is huge variation on most of these scales, but think of it very generally. You have male, nature, chaos, violence, irrationality, pain, greatness. And female, nurture, order, peace, rationality, pleasure, mediocrity.

These tensions need each other, as people need each other. Order decays, and is renewed by chaos. Male chaos is redirected by female order to more productive pursuits. Progressives come up with new ways to change society, Conservatives try to make sure it doesn't fuck up the good bits we already have. At this level of abstraction, conservative codes female, but politically that's not how it is currently, which is an interesting way of thinking about politics. The “feminine” politics of order are largely in the service of a “masculine” political project of trying out new shit. And the “male” embrace of inequality and freedom is channeled into the conservative project of slowing down the progs. The interactions are functionally infinite, so all this is descriptive rather than predictive. Politics makes strange bedfellows, and none of this means that these current realities are permanent in any way. But the tensions are.

Now let's put in some rudimentary statistics, and start making some basic assumptions that are certainly not 100% accurate, but should be a good descriptor of reality. Within each tension between two poles or archetypes is a bell curve of human behavior. It can be tall or short, but the poles of a tension are rare. Pure archetypes always are. Most people, psychology and behavior will cluster around the average value to some degree. What is true for IQ is true for violence, income, sex and number of offspring.

This begins to explain secular cycles, Freud, political organization and horseshoe theory. It explains why marginal members of groups are often the biggest cheerleaders. The most famous German nationalist was Austrian. Shaun King is white. The richest woman in the world is a dude. The first black president wasn't “black-black” (ADOS), and the first black president was Bill Clinton. Math is not without its ironies.

If it were the case that humans had a single nature, we should not expect cycles of any sort. We should simply solve our problems the most direct way and have a smooth path through history. We see nothing of the sort, but we do see a general tendency toward higher organization, larger civilizations etc. Think of the law of averages pushing this vast ocean of human duality relentlessly toward the middle. Order is winning, at least for now, but it contains within it the seeds of its own destruction, and we all know it. Hence the millenial cults of the Second Coming and Global Warming as the duelling apocalypses fueling the paranoid fringe of each political religion.

We all feel within us that this level of organization can't be sustained with the number of people we are producing, and that is going to mean a lot of death at some point. Malthus has been wrong for a long time, but the heat death of the universe is a long way off and he won't be forever. The popularity of the zombie movie is a social expression of the human connection to this fear. It is our fantasy that we'd be the ones to survive.

The reality is, the world isn't ending today and probably not tomorrow. We'll keep muddling along. We are the richest and most advanced we've ever been, more people are living more comfortable lives than any time before, and in fact in all the time before added together! And we're miserable as shit.

Our dual nature is oppressed by every temporary victory of one side. All order and the very real benefits it brings are at the cost of very real oppression. Freedom is dangerous, unequal and in general a bad bet. Yet it militates within us, furious and raging at the restrictions of our social lives. We feel an injustice in the randomness of the world, the pointlessness of all the suffering, the sheer cruelty of sentience in a cold and mechanical universe. What Dillard calls the “glut of pain”.

The problem with rationality is that it is death in the end. The math of the universe says that we are here to suffer until we die, and no amount of joy we steal from relentless time will last. Following our natural instincts to reproduce our genes will only bring more people into the world to suffer until they die. Once we lose all excuses for our suffering, we find that it was within us all the time. Transhumanists and wireheaders fantasize about bypassing suffering via drugs and technology. Religious gurus variously channel and redirect it. Life is pain, anyone tells you different is selling something. If you want to know why there is a loss of meaning, it is because we are running out of excuses to explain our psychic pain.

But for every pole is a competing and legitimate one. Life finds a way, hope springs eternal, it's just crazy enough to work. Any good game theorist can tell you that irrationality is rational at times. It is this that Camus refers to when he says that we must imagine Sisyphus happy. Not happy with his circumstance per se, but happy that he has his suffering laid out before him, and he is willing to meet it. In his punishment there is more time. The irrational search for another roll of the dice, a possible future, a chance at the gods. A revolt against death, against inevitability, against math itself. A sense that if we can hang in this game long enough, if we play our cards right and we get a bit lucky, we might someday escape this hellworld within our own skulls.

tbh this post and parts of its replies almost deserve a minor mention in the 'ways smart people can be very confused' museum that hosts greats like Weininger, Hegel, and Berkeley. Hopefully miy reply doesn't!

Conflicts over categories aren't driven by the existence of categories, categories are just rough labels or ideas people have that are useful to their ends, and said categories pop up and conflicts occur over them over those nebulous, fractal, and contingent ends. Republicans aren't republicans because they're polarizing around R vs D, they are so because of the atoms hitting other atoms, which at our scale occurs in thousands of different rough patterns, some of which are 'reacting to increases in crime and homelessness', 'noticing many surrounding them are failing relative to traditional religious morality', etc. Given that complexity, it's difficult to make any claims about the way such conflicts unfold that don't reference said underlying causes at all.

Not really sure what you're arguing tbh, but I think a direct refutation of it is that (and this comes from the intuition that these 'poles' are more casual terms than they are fundamental) of two poles, often one just wins. Organized christian religious institutions as a political force behind history lost to democratic, modern politics. Horse-drawn carriages for practical transportation lost to cars, swords lost to guns, etc. There's no root causes in conflict between 'poles', just the laws of physics and the complexities of human interests and contingencies acting through them.

I don't think you're disagreeing with me, I'm talking about human nature and you're talking about technology. The fundamental tensions I'm talking about map onto these technological, social and political issues and innovations in unpredictable ways.

Politics may have defeated Christianity, but that wasn't a fundamental tension, politics and religion coexisted for millenia before, and will again. The tension there would be between the moralistic and materialistic human urges. So politics defeats a religion, but it becomes a religion in the process, thereby maintaining the duality. Even atheists need a god and a heaven, even if god is the president and heaven is "gay luxury space communism". This is the tension that destroys materialistic politics, it's why communism never worked and became a cult. It just couldn't get over the god-shaped hole. Politically, this tension gets generalized as "church and state", and it is generally understood today that separating the two is better for both. Render unto the one pole the things that are Caesar's and to the other, the things that are God's.

At sufficient levels of abstraction, some good advice.

which at our scale occurs in thousands of different rough patterns

Many more than this, I think. My point, somewhat garbled perhaps, is not that any group has some eternal essence, much the opposite. We all have the same conflicts within us, these are so numerous and interact in such complex ways that there's no predicting how they'll map onto the future. But if one digs into an issue long enough and defines the terms carefully enough, the basic tensions usually present themselves quickly.

You correctly note that this is descriptive, and not prescriptive. That the data is noisy and the correlations poor—not that correlation implies causation, anyway. For a given issue it is easy to find counterexamples, or even imagine an alternate history where the constituencies might have been reversed.

Shouldn’t this be evidence against the proposed dichotomy?

Suppose a third category, neuter, defined by compromise positions. Neither nature nor nurture but natural law. Rejecting both autocracy and chaos in favor of mediated decision-making. The role in your gender analogy is obvious. It is the synthesis to this dialectic. After all, the poles of a tension are rare.

This category rejects duality in favor of a triality. What if we posit another category, one that rejects all three? Meta-compromise, or perhaps meta-skepticism. Then—then—

you are like a little baby

watch this

By induction, we end up with an arbitrarily large set of skeptic positions. An infinity of signaling and countersignaling. I think this model better reflects human interaction than any proposed duality. For any sufficiently entrenched set of positions, there is alpha in claiming another level of sophistication.

Shouldn’t this be evidence against the proposed dichotomy?

Not really, in fact explaining why constituencies reverse is part of the allure here.

If you're interested, give me an example and I'll see if we can walk through it.

Suppose a third category, neuter, defined by compromise positions.

In this taxonomy, the poles are theoretical, like the width of a line in geometry. Compromise positions are where we all are, stuck in a million tensions, being pulled off our center. What you call neuter I call synthesis, reality. No one is 100% one thing. No one is perfectly free, or perfectly unfree. We all exist as many contradictions in uneasy compromise with all the others.

Then what does it buy us?

At best, you’ve applied Principal Component Analysis to sociology. But correlation still isn’t causation, and just because you can model a position as a linear combination of some axes doesn’t imply they are meaningful.

It buys us a model of the world as conflict theory and a more realistic expectation of what progress and success should look like.

And a simple yet infinitely recursive method of disentangling issues into component dialectics.

I see it as fundamentally misguided to try to map all opposite pairs to each other in one neat table with two columns.

Yeah, that would be a giant waste of time, which is why I didn't do it.

Like chaos is female and order is male but then you'd also want violence to be male and peace to be female which is kind of contradictory. Things have both qualities in them and it depends on which one you want to emphasize. The desert sun with its scorching heat and its spiky rays is male. The large nurturing sun is female. The soft moon is female mystery and twilight associated with moist dew. The cold hard rock of the moon is male.

So you have understood me!

Yes. The duality is within us. If you define things carefully and specifically enough, the dichotomy presents itself. A warm sun on a cold day is "female" because it is comforting and pleasurable, something we associate with the feminine, but hot, sweaty sun is more masculine and cool breeze and shade would be more "feminine" in that specific case. This is not about dogmatic categories, but explaining seemingly contradictory ideals.

the world isn't just one axis, there are many.

Exactly. A functionally infinite set of interactions and influences.

The particular beliefs and lines of division between Rs and Ds in today's America aren't derivable from first principles symbolism

Here we may disagree slightly, but it's definitional. I think it is explainable in terms of a confluence of tensions, and I think it is derivable by these methods, but that no one actually does it. This does not mean I think there is some deep essence to left or right, R or D, I merely use those because the tension between them is high and it allows us to see that as you say, there is no consistency in politics.

That's sort of the point. Take gun and drug legalization/restriction. This is a political issue, not a fundamental tension, but this can be seen in terms of different axes of tension. You have danger/safety, freedom/restriction, power/weakness, pain/pleasure, etc. Everyone looks at those issues, does their party affiliation thing and finds an explanation that satisfies them about why they think what they think. The "freedom" value is associated with the "danger", "power" and "pleasure" values here, which means that people who are really far out on the bell curve on the axis of "freedom" would probably scorn the danger and desire the pleasure and be in favor of both (i.e. libertarians). Everyone else is more toward the average of these tensions, and we get the muddy partial restriction of contemporary politics where certain guns and certain drugs are legal in certain circumstances.

The American voting system results in two blocks and this fact so mesmerizes people of the systematizing personality that they can't resist fitting a pet theory that must compactly represent the shared symbolic content of these two sides.

Hilariously, you seem to have almost perfectly misunderstood. There is no shared symbolic content for political groups, that's the whole point. All sides have all the binaries, in infinitely complex combinations. Society, the world, international politics is so fiendishly complex because of these interactions, because every binary contains a million different binaries. Countries, corporations, cities, parties, people are not one thing. "I tried to draw the line, but it ends up running down the middle of me most of the time".

But in other societies it's more clear that there can be many different factions and the split isn't between two eternal sides.

Yes and no. Yes there are many factions, and in part this whole little shitpost is about how infinite and varied those factions can be. But I think there are always two sides, made up of those many, many interest groups with their own specific combination of beliefs and interests in constantly shifting coalitions with only two real sides. Roman politics had millions of shifts, reversals, revolutions and coups, but the optimates and the populares, the greens and blues. There is a binary there.

Conflict does not end, it only moves, because the tension is fundamental. When one side of a binary that became political or social "wins", what happens? Where does that tension go? Do all the constituent interests, powers, parties and people just evaporate? Impossible. The conflict just moves. After war, conflict moves into politics, war being the continuation of politics by violent means, and peace being the continuation of war by nonviolent means. Germany won a hegemony over continental Europe in peace much more effectively than they ever did in war.

The various interest groups split into constituent parts and vie for power within that binary before reconstituting with other groups in a new political reality. If one group "wins" at something, they usually split into a new binary and one side will ally with the losers from the previous conflict. So the pre-civil war national binary was slave/free, north/south, east/west. When the south seceded, the national binary was then pro-war Republicans and pro-peace Democrats. When the south lost and was reintegrated, the losing faction from the war years re-allied with the south.

Political coalitions are inherently unstable and given to shedding marginal members. The more one side wins, the more the important contest is internal. Think one-party elections where the nomination is the real contest. The more power one side of a political binary gains, the more important their internal divisions are. If one political group destabilizes the interparty binary, they will be split by the resulting tension, new coalitions will emerge and the two-party binary will return in full effect.

This can be expressed in multiple parties, or only within one party. But there will always be a fundamental division within every group.

From the subatomic to the international.

Everything is conflict.

Dillard says that death is spinning the globe, but she shaded it. She read Heisenberg. She turned back at the pass.

Math is spinning the globe, and death is just part of it. All values resolve to zero eventually.

Touhy/Oher reports seems to touch on a lot of culture war issues. Though it could just be a family feud.

  1. They only became a part of his life when he was 17/18. But I guess they decided to become a forever family then. Photos for the next 6-8 years looks like a happy family. They put him in conservatorship at 18 instead of adopting. It gave them a bunch of legal rights over him. Sounds a little bad since he was an adult but it did make a formal tie. And let’s be honest a normal 18 year old often needs adults in the room. An 18 year old who never had a family life definitely needs it. Sort of gets down to whether they were acting in good faith or using him. I lean on good faith.

  2. The movie I believe portrayed him as a little dumb. His childhood issues probably did limit him. By the time he got to the nfl he scored a 19 on the wonderlich. Which when I’ve looked it up before is like American average IQ and around 100. So not dumb just average.

  3. He apparently wants more money now. The family and the author Michael Lewis seem to indicate that they never made much in the movie. Like $700k between all of them. While Oher indicates they got bank. Lewis says this just means Hollywood bad and writers aren’t getting paid. Fwiw Oher never got paid a lot in the nfl. As a first round pick he got 5 years 13.8. For nfl contracts I’d do a simple formula of guessing you get about half after taxes and agent fees. The big money in the nfl is from free agency contracts. He signed two. First one he didn’t finish but was $5/year and played one year. Then signed elsewhere at $3. He played well so they extended him immediately but he got hurt mid year and cut with 9.5 guaranteed. Lifetime earnings probably around $30-35. 15 after taxes and fees. If your life story become a movie that grossed $300 million I think it would be reasonable to think it could boost those earnings and would be meaningful.

  4. The white savior storyline. I’m curious how much current politics could have soured what was a happy relationship. The family no doubt used him some and loved the having a football star in the family thing and doing things like getting draft picks taken together. From my own background I saw the same storyline as my football coach adopted a black kid who was a great athlete (I played midgets football with him and high school basketball). Would have been a Catholic version of the same story. Curious if current politics are ruining these types of relationships.

Slightly different topic but I tend to think the people who make it to play pro sports are significantly above group level IQ. Like Oher being 100 IQ. I just can’t see a 70-80 IQ functioning well enough to understand pro-sports concepts or being capable of training themselves to get there.

For what it's worth, you're right on the nose with his career earnings in the NFL: https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/carolina-panthers/michael-oher-5484/cash-earnings/

The family and the author Michael Lewis seem to indicate that they never made much in the movie. Like $700k between all of them.

This part of his allegations has, from the beginning, seemed delusional to me. Of course they made almost nothing off the movie. That is how Hollywood works, I bet if we looked it up, the studio still officially claims the movie lost money.

They only became a part of his life when he was 17/18. But I guess they decided to become a forever family then. Photos for the next 6-8 years looks like a happy family. They put him in conservatorship at 18 instead of adopting. It gave them a bunch of legal rights over him. Sounds a little bad since he was an adult but it did make a formal tie. And let’s be honest a normal 18 year old often needs adults in the room. An 18 year old who never had a family life definitely needs it. Sort of gets down to whether they were acting in good faith or using him. I lean on good faith.

Did the Touhy's put their other kids in conservatorships? If the conservatorships are for the good of the people being placed in it, why not? Did they not want as good for their own children as Oher? Does he still need an adult in the room now that he's 37? The conservatorship reportedly still exists!

He apparently wants more money now. The family and the author Michael Lewis seem to indicate that they never made much in the movie. Like $700k between all of them. While Oher indicates they got bank. Lewis says this just means Hollywood bad and writers aren’t getting paid. Fwiw Oher never got paid a lot in the nfl. As a first round pick he got 5 years 13.8. For nfl contracts I’d do a simple formula of guessing you get about half after taxes and agent fees. The big money in the nfl is from free agency contracts. He signed two. First one he didn’t finish but was $5/year and played one year. Then signed elsewhere at $3. He played well so they extended him immediately but he got hurt mid year and cut with 9.5 guaranteed. Lifetime earnings probably around $30-35. 15 after taxes and fees. If your life story become a movie that grossed $300 million I think it would be reasonable to think it could boost those earnings and would be meaningful.

I have read enough variance in how payouts for various parts of Hollywood productions work that I'll wait for discovery (if any) on this. Obviously Lewis and the Touhy's have an incentive to down play any money they may have received and Oher has an incentive to exaggerate it.

The payoffs feel off to me. Especially since Michael Lewis wasn’t a complete virgin at this stuff. He already wrote a big book - Liars Poker. Was smart enough to last on a Wall St trading desks. And the Touhys negotiated plenty of deals too. It just doesn’t make sense they only got themselves 700k. Depends on the touhys net worth to a great extent I see anything from $40-250 million. (Apparently sold restaurants for 200+ but who knows how much debt they had on them). If it’s 250 million I doubt they would squeeze Oher on some payouts.

On the conservatorship I feel fairly confident a person in his position needed someone he could trust. The other kids wouldn’t have had life coming at them as fast and the Touhys being rich would control their kids allowances etc.

Didn’t the family get $700000? The author of the book probably had his own separate deal.

Moneyball is the much more relevant comparison fwiw.

Moneyball came later. So couldn’t include it as his background when negotiating first deal.

Huh. You're right. The Moneyball movie came later, but the book was written before The Blind Side.

I figured once an author has made the content for one big movie they get more leverage. Having a highly popular book gives some leverage.

You are correct, that makes a lot of sense. More familiarity with the process as well. But I'd think the most important thing is having two producers (directors, studios, whatever and etc.) interested in the work. One guy wants to make a movie of your book, you get what's "fair;" two guys want to compete to make a movie of your book you have a bidding war.

Michael Lewis also spoke at my sister's graduation, so I've followed his writing pretty closely, but less so the movies. I never recall hearing anything about the book prior to the movie, where Moneyball and Liar's Poker and The Big Short were huge successes and cultural landmarks prior to their respective films. The Blind Side was sort of an also ran as a book.

Possibly relevant: on another forum someone mentioned that Oher was in college when the book was written/published. NCAA rules would have prohibited him from benefitting from the book during that time. This may have impacted the later distribution of rights based on the book. So because Oher probably didn't/couldn't get revenue from the book, he would not have gotten part of the book rights, his rights in the film would have had to be a more general "life rights" agreement. But the filmmakers may not have pursued that, given that they had the rights to the book in hand. Maybe a sufficiently zealous advocate manages to carve out some money for Oher, but that seems like a tiny slight to sue over.

It's an interesting theory but the timing doesn't work out. The conservatorship started in 2004, and it's doubtful that there would be any indication that not only would a book that featured him be written by a prominent writer but that that book would be turned into a movie. He wouldn't have needed to sign over publicity rights for a book because he wouldn't have been entitled to any money from it, and there's no indication that he made any money. It's certainly not customary for publishers that aren't tabloids to offer cash to people whose stories they make money off of. In any event, even if NCAA rules prohibited him from making money directly, it's unlikely that they would be interpreted that a conservator would be allowed to make money on his behalf. Even if that were the case, it would make more sense to establish a trust for his benefit that to go full-blown conservatorship, since a trust doesn't require court approval.

More comments

I agree he probably needed someone he could trust, but I don't see how that necessitates the construction of a legal conservatorship. It's not clear to me why the Touhy's needed extra legal rights to control Oher after he was an adult.

The rule of thumb is that rights to source material should be about 2% of the film's budget. The Blind Side has a 29 million budget which puts the fee at 580,000. JK Rowling received 2 million for the first four Harry Potter books, and those were much bigger than a nonfiction book about offensive linemen. 700k seems reasonable.

The movie Liars Poker has nothing to do with the Michael Lewis book.

I feel like this mostly comes down to $. Oher seems to believe he was screwed out of $ from the movie but the family is saying they got paid very little.

From my understanding the family is independently very rich already so maybe they just settle.

I will say Hollywood is an interesting world where a movie about your life can make $300mm and you don’t see any of it. I wouldn’t be hyped about it either.

Slightly different topic but I tend to think the people who make it to play pro sports are significantly above group level IQ. Like Oher being 100 IQ. I just can’t see a 70-80 IQ functioning well enough to understand pro-sports concepts or being capable of training themselves to get there.

IIRC IQ is correlated with reaction time too. Between that and the Army having a cutoff of around your low score because it's just too hard to train such types I also have to think they're >70-80, though you wonder if certain people like Ja Morant are actual morons in the old-fashioned sense.

The correlation is quite strong (.5?) ..that doesn't mean sportsmen are invariably smart. If you're smart you have far, far more options.

E.g. a lot of superstar soccer players seem fairly thick..

It's only strong for certain types of activities. Simple reaction time like someone throwing something at you which you bat away, it's almost nothing. Strategizing or problem solving, it's quite high. Defensive linemen probably have some of both. I'm sure it's way better to be smart than not, but much of it is using techniques and tactics on which you've drilled against techniques and tactics on which you've also drilled.

It's very strong for simple reaction time, even stronger for quick simple choices iirc.

Regarding athlete IQ, while the average pro athlete may be above group level, their intellectual abilities are so singularly focused on sports that they often come across as unintelligent when it comes to just about any other activity. Thus they are on the field making incredible plays that will be remembered for a long time thereafter, unlike their interviews/biographies which are generally devoid of any actual insight whatsoever.
I'm mainly lifting this theory from one of DFW's tennis essays, but I think it may hold true for sports in general.

certainly I've heard of various otherwise dim-seeming elite athletes having savant-like memory (LeBron James and Steven Stamkos are two that pop to mind)

There is a direct correlation between physical fitness (muscle size) and proper function of the brain. The primary reason for memory loss, and the mental effects are sarcopenia.

Could you include a little more background, or at least some links, in your post?

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/38190720/blind-side-subject-michael-oher-alleges-adoption-was-lie-family-took-all-film-proceeds

Sorry didn’t feel like leaving a bunch of links. The Blindside is a movie about a black future professional offensive tackle who moved in around 17 with the local rich kid family in the south. They made a movie about it which was sort of a Hallmark style feel good movie. It was one of Michael Lewis books (Liars Poker/The Big Short/Moneyball) and was written in that fashion.

Thanks!

If your life story become a movie that grossed $300 million I think it would be reasonable to think it could boost those earnings and would be meaningful.

Hollywood Accounting. Whoever made money out of that movie, it's highly unlikely to be the family/people on whom the story was based. They may well have got a hefty payment, but it's doubtful to be in the millions. He probably did get cheated out of money, but this is (sadly) a family quarrel and let's be realistic here - like most sportspeople, he'd probably have burned through whatever he earned even if he had gotten his hands on every cent of it. That's not saying he's stupid or low IQ, but it seems to be how most (the exceptions being few) end up.

Hollywood accounting is largely a legend from the old days, and despite some real examples it was never as common as is sometimes implied (accounting tricks were commonly used for production finance and tax reasons, most creators who sold rights were paid cash). In the modern day, agents will make sure you get points up front or a substantial cash payment for IP rights.

For the most part in movies the people who make money are those who fund movies and some star talent (directors, star actors, occasionally others) that can bid up their price. Everyone else gets paid standard or union rates. This is similar to any other business.

The problem is that in entertainment an additional entitlement exists, namely the ‘right’ some people demand to revenue points even when they bear none of the risk for a production. In other industries this doesn’t fly, equity is offered either as part of compensation packages to attract talent or to keep it, there is no ‘right’ to it. And when an accountant or lawyer makes partner, they have to ‘buy in’ for several years before they start making a personal profit.

This (not AI or writers rooms) is actually the biggest sticking point in the current strikes.

I imagine part of the problem is that the guy is looking at "This movie made $300 million, I didn't get any of that, who did?" and pinning it on his family. But it is going to be the studios who take chunks out of that to cover marketing, distribution, etc. Even if that means $100-200 million of a profit remaining, that's going to the people who know how the system works and that you don't sign up for a flat fee at the start, you make sure you look for a share of whatever profits are made.

I would say Mr Oher took the up-front money, and is now expecting that his share should have been bigger, and nobody is explaining to him (or he's not listening to them) that this is not how it works when you make movies.

Hollywood accounting is largely a legend from the old days

Looks like this crowd don't know that:

Disney has been hit with a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court by film financier TSG, which claims that the media giant used “nearly every trick in the Hollywood accounting book” to hoard hundreds of millions in profit.

Maybe their lawyer should tell them "Sorry, but 'Hollywood accounting' is an old days legend, I can't take this case because you will embarrass yourselves"?

Lawsuit here, doubtless the judge will laugh it out of court because "Hollywood accounting doesn't happen today!"

The pejorative term “Hollywood Accounting” refers to the opaque and creative methods frequently employed by major television and film studios to cheat those who share in the profits of a television series or film out of their full contracted-for shares. The practice has unfortunately become ubiquitous among the major Hollywood studios, with a recent report from CNN Business describing the tactics of Hollywood Accounting as among “the most fantastical fictions ever devised in Tinseltown.” Even by those standards, however, this case stands out. At its root, it is a chilling example of how two Hollywood behemoths with a long and shameful history of Hollywood Accounting, Defendants Fox and Disney, have tried to use nearly every trick in the Hollywood Accounting playbook to deprive Plaintiff TSG — the financier who, in good faith, invested more than $3.3 billion with them — out of hundreds of millions of dollars.

...What the auditors found in sampling just three of the 140+ films at issue was clear evidence of Hollywood Accounting. For example, the auditors discovered that Fox failed to credit TSG with revenue that Fox’s own business records showed should have been included in Defined Gross Receipts, Fox charged TSG tens of millions of dollars of distribution fees that the RPA does not permit, and Fox deducted from TSG’s Defined Gross Receipts additional tens of millions of dollars of purported “distribution expenses” that, in fact, had nothing to do with the distribution of the Qualifying Pictures and were therefore not properly deductible. The auditors also uncovered rampant “self-dealing,” the practice by which a studio enters into “sweetheart” deals with its licensee affiliates to artificially minimize the profit payments to stakeholders like TSG, who generally share only in the revenues received by the studio, excluding the revenues received directly by these licensee exhibitors.

Up until recently, nearly all films debuted in the movie theatres and remained there exclusively for a period of time, typically between approximately 90 to 120 days. This period of time is known as the theatrical “window.” Films would generally then be released in secondary distribution channels in sequential “windows,” starting with pay per view (i.e., digital film rentals), then home video (i.e., DVD and Blu-Ray sales), then pay television (i.e., exhibition on pay television networks such as HBO and Showtime, traditionally known as the “Pay 1” window) and then subscription video-on demand or “SVOD” (i.e., availability on a subscription-based digital streaming service such as Netflix or Hulu). For decades, Fox licensed films to the pay television service HBO exclusively in the “Pay 1 window” pursuant to an “output deal” that required HBO to license Fox films after they had debuted in the theatres. Relevant to this dispute, public sources have reported that Fox agreed in 2012 to license HBO its films released through 2022, for an estimated $200 million per year.

In 2019, however, Fox was acquired by Disney. Shortly thereafter, Disney’s then CEO Bob Chapek announced that Disney would restructure to focus strategically on building value in its wholly- and majority-owned SVOD platforms, such as Disney+ and Hulu. This meant that Disney wanted to make its most attractive content available for streaming on those platforms as soon as possible. Standing in the way of this strategy, however, was that the Fox films, including the Qualifying Pictures, were contractually exclusive to HBO in the Pay 1 window, and therefore could not be offered on Disney+ and Hulu without violating the terms of the HBO license. Undeterred, on information and belief, Disney ordered Fox to renegotiate its agreement with HBO and give up a significant portion of its guaranteed HBO license fees, in return for HBO agreeing that Fox could license these Qualifying Pictures to Disney+ and Hulu.

Specifically, according to public reports, in November 2021, after decades of lucrative Pay 1 licensing deals, Fox—on information and belief at the direction of its parent company Disney—convinced HBO to waive its exclusivity and thus enable Disney+ and Hulu to exhibit films concurrently with HBO’s Pay 1 window. While this move was beneficial to Disney its shareholders and, relatedly, its senior executives, it came at a great cost to TSG because such valuable waivers in the entertainment business do not come for free. On information and belief, the renegotiation of the Fox/HBO Pay 1 output deal cost Fox many millions of dollars that otherwise would have been reported to TSG as Defined Gross Receipts.

Hollywood accounting is alive and well. The films are quite good at turning minimal profit, so if your contact is based on the profit not the gross you are fucked. On the other hand this type of accounting is very common in any multinationals - there is reason they are based in Dublin and the companies in Dublin pay trough the nose for ip from companies in the Cayman Islands, so calling it Hollywood is probably a bit dated.

I once started on an abortive career in Accenture (absolutely hated the culture, was mildly relieved I got fired) and as we were getting familiarized with SAP modules it was pretty obvious one module existed mostly to allow deceptive accounting. E.g. creating illusory numbers through billing for various corporate 'services' provided between controlled companies meanwhile still preserving the real numbers.

Hollywood accounting is largely a legend from the old days

The latest examples on Wikipedia are from the late 2010s (including one case settled in 2021). When I think of the old days of legend I think "my grandsires' grandsires", not "my kids were a little shorter".

some people demand to revenue points even when they bear none of the risk for a production

Revenue points are a way of bearing some of the risk for a production. If I demand $100K flat, I bear zero risk. If I demand 0.1 gross points on a movie expected to gross $100M, my expectation is still $100K (either pretend interest rates are 0 or say I get a little more to even out the NPV) but my risk has increased (my variance is no longer 0), and my paymasters' risk has decreased (their expected profits are still $N-$100K but the variance of their profits has reduced). I'm bearing more risk and they're bearing less. For many standard/union rate workers this might usually be moot, as they can only negotiate for points in addition to base salary rather than instead, but people with IP rights aren't so restricted.

Looking thru Wikipedia - I’m surprised there are still some examples of this. I’d assume the stars have agents who know the accounting games and would have their workarounds at this point. I could see things working years ago for studios in their contracts but I’d assume the agents and lawyers on the other side aren’t idiots.

The examples from the 2010s section involve either old cases or losses for studios in lawsuits for trying this against established stars e.g. with the cast of Bones or Frank Darabont vs AMC. So at least their lawyers were on-point.

I assume anyone with leverage is wise now.

Other people just take what they can get and don't even get on that page because there's nothing to challenge.

I remember some redditor writing a short story (or it may have just been the outline of the concept) about a group of US Marines trapped in ancient Rome called Rome Sweet Rome that got optioned and he clearly noted the problems with a net profit share in his AMA but he also pointed out that he had absolutely zero leverage.

Think I heard that story might become a movie. Almost feel like it was associated with the next gladiator movie.

Isn't that what 'gross' means? Gross revenue? Eg Box office ticket sales.

So the producers can't say a movie bringing in $300 million cost $400 million to make factoring in catering and purchasing IP from the company in the Cayman Islands?

As an actors agent I think you'd be able to tune your contract's definition of 'percentage of gross revenue' to deflect most Hollywood accounting issues. You'd also think the Screen Actors Guild would actually have resources available to help provide this knowledge.

It's worth noting that on Reddit the Tuohy's are being portrayed as mustache-twirling villains despite no evidence they did anything wrong.

It looks to me like another case of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics.

You take in a troubled teen, give him the support he needs to earn $14 million playing in the NFL, as well as enough fame to ensure a lifetime of sponsorship income when he blows the first $14 million. And this is the thanks they get. Serves them right, of course, for being rich, white, Southern, and Christian. Nothing they can do will ever be good enough.

In no world is Michael Oher worse off for knowing the Tuohy's. Where would he be without them? The lack of gratitude to me seems remarkable.

Just want to push back on the “when he blows it all”. I haven’t seen reports he’s broke. Perhaps he is. Perhaps he isn’t. But I’ve seen this narrative a few times.

Agree they did a lot for him. Probably helped him become a 5-star recruit. And helped him get into ole miss academically. Otherwise he’s probably a juco kid who transfers to a SEC school then hopefully works out. Becomes a 4th round pick without the bigger rookie first round pick contract. The dad played college basketball so no doubt helped him having a place to go home during off-season and with the work he needed to do to make it.

The best culture war angle here might be the gap between what really happened and the Reddit mustache no-nothing view. And perhaps I could say the film was blue tribe acceptable when made probably even moreso the book since Lewis throws in his the game “evolved” knowledge from Lawrence Taylor and here’s why his specific body type is so important in football. While the movie made some jokes on dumbwitted southern culture.

I assume he must be broke otherwise why go after the family?

He's clearly being taken for a ride by his lawyer. The family didn't make much money from the book/movie and, even if they did, why is someone entitled to money for their "story"? You can write a story about whoever you want and you don't have to pay them a thing. Nevertheless, I'm sure this will play out in the press and that the Tuohy's will settle with a non-disclosure to make it go away. Betraying the ones who helped you is a hell of a way to make money.

Which is a shame. He could easily pull down good money from appearances, endorsements, and memorabilia. He doesn't need this.

See my post above. He's not doing anything you wouldn't do if you found out someone had full control of your affairs for the past 20 years.

The Touhys' lawyer claims that Oher has threatened them with lawsuits before now that never went anywhere. I tend to believe the family, I think the idea that they were hoping to scam money out of a broke teenager is unlikely. The chances of even a really talented player going pro and getting rich are extremely slim.

They put him in conservatorship at 18 instead of adopting. It gave them a bunch of legal rights over him. Sounds a little bad since he was an adult but it did make a formal tie.

the NCAA would have brought the hammer down on them if they didn't. the parents were both Ole Miss alums and didn't hide the fact that they wanted him to go there too. the dad claims that he couldn't legally adopt because Oher was 18, which seems wrong. the biological mom was still hanging around so perhaps that's why. either way, from the book's portrayal, the idea that they had some master plan all along of 'adopting' him so they could help their alma mater seems absurd - he started staying with them before he became a mega highly rated recruit.

The movie I believe portrayed him as a little dumb. His childhood issues probably did limit him. By the time he got to the nfl he scored a 19 on the wonderlich. Which when I’ve looked it up before is like American average IQ and around 100. So not dumb just average.

in the book he's not really 'dumb' so much as lacking a ton of knowledge, and extremely diffident (since he's one of like three black kids in a white private christian school). the position he plays, left tackle, actually scores the highest on the wonderlic relative to other NFL positions, which is pretty cool.

The white savior storyline. I’m curious how much current politics could have soured what was a happy relationship.

if the book was released today everyone would flame the hell out of the mom. she's not 'racist' per se, just kind of clueless at times, but she's acting in good faith trying to help the kid. at one point she's trying to find a baby picture for the senior yearbook, but since the kid's druggie mom and his foster families don't have anything, she just googles a picture of a black baby and uses that.

the dad claims that he couldn't legally adopt because Oher was 18, which seems wrong. the biological mom was still hanging around so perhaps that's why.

Checked the Tennessee Code (Title 36, Chapter 1: Adoption) and it does explicitly say "[a]n adult may be adopted" in Section 107. Section 117 talks about getting the adult adoptee's consent. The previous parent also normally needs to consent -- at least, I didn't see anything saying the parent's consent isn't required if her child is 18.

Could you add some context to this post? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Just for some clarification: The media reports seem to be acting like this is a lawsuit, or at least that's the impression they're giving most readers. It's not; it's a petition to terminate the conservatorship and order an accounting from the conservators. There's some language in it about him possibly being screwed out of some money, but without an accounting we don't know. I'm about the same age as Oher and God knows if I found out I had inadvertently made someone my conservator when I was 18 and they accepted money on my behalf I'd be damn sure that they account for every dime.

That being said, the whole thing stinks. Conservatives (i.e. the Fox News comment section) seem to be sure that this is a shakedown from a guy who blew all his NFL money, but there's no evidence of that. I find it highly unlikely as well, because the revelation of the conservatiorship was part of an investigation into his financial affairs he hired an attorney to conduct around the time he retired in 2016; hiring an attorney to investigate one's financial affairs isn't normally something a spendthrift would do, at least not until he he burned through it all. Anyway, the giveaway that he didn't know about the nature of the conservatorship and that the Touheys didn't want him to know the full ramifications of what happened is that they apparently stopped using it when he went to the NFL. Had he known about it at the time he wouldn't have been able to get his own agent and would have either petitioned to end it then or worked with the conservator. If the Touheys had sought to enforce it, it would have been a dead giveaway of what they did and would have caused some controversy right around the time the movie was released. Signing a movie deal on someone's behalf behind their back is one thing, but the public nature of NFL contracts means that this wasn't something that would have gone unnoticed. And there's no evidence that they tried to handle his affairs for him since. Better to let sleeping dogs lie and hope it never comes up again.

Oher stated in his 2011 book that he entered into the conservatorship as a substitute for adoption. While the book was probably ghostwritten, he presumably read it, and would have been aware of it at that time. It's possible he didn't know that it hadn't been legally wrapped up.

What strikes me as most likely is that the family wanted to take care of him, but not to adopt him, because adoption presumably includes family inheritance on equal footing with the other kids. That's...a lot for a rich family to do, emotionally. That's not just the parents decision, at some level, it's also asking your kids to share their inheritance with the new adult son.

We have things called wills. You can give money however you please. The Touhys gave equal shares of movie proceeds split 5 ways to both parents, Oher, and kids. Wasn’t a ton of money apparently from what they have.

Who knows why they chose conservatorship. Perhaps, they still wanted his birth parents to have that. For all we know he just royally f$cked himself with this and took himself out of family money. And they would have split three ways because they enjoyed all he brought to the family.

Sure you can distribute your money however you like. But you can't do so without introducing all kinds of problems and intrigue into your family. Just the facts of the matter.

The conservatorship doesn’t eliminate that issue. Someday the will gets read and if you told him you were family he’d still be there. And well that’s a rich persons problem if he gets 10 mill and the biologic kids get 95.

What strikes me as most likely is that the family wanted to take care of him, but not to adopt him, because adoption presumably includes family inheritance on equal footing with the other kids. That's...a lot for a rich family to do, emotionally. That's not just the parents decision, at some level, it's also asking your kids to share their inheritance with the new adult son.

I'm glad you brought this up because I forgot to, and it's my suspicion that this was the real reason they got a conservatorship instead of an adoption. My problem is that, when it comes to adults, the two things aren't comparable the way they are for minors. I dealt with one adult adoption when I had my own practice (they were friends I referred out; I didn't handle it myself). The wife had met the husband when the daughter was very young, and the wife was dodging an abusive boyfriend at the time. The husband raised the daughter like she was his own, and would have adopted her earlier, but that would have involved tracking down the bio father to terminate rights which would have created a whole hornet's nest. The couple was working class and relatively young so they weren't likely to have wills or really do any kind of estate planning. The adoption was largely symbolic, but it had the added benefit of making sure that she would inherit and be able to make decisions without a ton of estate planning on his part. I assumed at the time that that's what most adult adoptions were about.

Now compare that to a conservatorship or guardianship of an adult (different states use different terms). It gives the guardian complete control over one's affairs until the court terminates it. In Pennsylvania the court will appoint counsel for the proposed ward just to make sure that the guardianship is in his best interest. It's not something that's done unless someone has the kind of disability that makes it unwise to allow them to handle money or make important decisions. My sister-in-law has a mildly retarded sister who doesn't have a guardian. The process is so involved one of the reasons I pushed Powers of Attorney on practically everyone who came through my office was that it's a lot easier to appoint someone while you're of sound mind then have the court figure out who the best person would be. I'm honestly surprised the court went along with it in the first place. It's certainly not something done symbolically.

My impression is that they didn't want to do the adoption but told him that the conservatorship, since it's an analog of guardianship, is "like an adoption" so they wouldn't have to explain to him that, upon the advice of their attorney, they didn't really want to formally adopt him. It would certainly be an awkward conversation to have. They probably figured that they just wouldn't enforce it. Then Hollywood comes calling while he's away at college and they're authorized to make decisions for him so they make one on behalf of "the family" without explaining anything to him.Then the movie does well and 20 years later the kid finds out that the adoption was a sham and that some contracts were signed on his behalf without his full participation and they involved a lot of money "to most people" and, to top it off, they never filed annual reports with the court even though they're legally required to (though courts often overlook this requirement). So now he wants answers and has to go to court to get them, because at this point he doesn't trust his "parents" to tell him the truth.

We're also all engaging in a little bit of racism/classism in assuming that the white family knew exactly what they were doing at all times, while Oher was just along for the ride. I've known a lot of rich people who got really odd legal ideas in advice from a family lawyer who doesn't really know what he's doing. They might equally have been under the mistaken impression that the conservatorship was kind of like a half-adoption, or that it expired automatically, or any of a dozen other harebrained ideas.

Slightly different topic but I tend to think the people who make it to play pro sports are significantly above group level IQ. Like Oher being 100 IQ. I just can’t see a 70-80 IQ functioning well enough to understand pro-sports concepts or being capable of training themselves to get there.

People like the idea of human beings as like character creation in DnD, you put too many points in Str and you don't have any left for Int! It feels just, it feels fair, it allows for humans to see a role for themselves in an Eigen Plot, even if they're not the big strong hero they still have a role.

The reality is human traits aren't distributed fairly. [John Urschel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Urschel#::text=John%20Cameron%20Urschel%20(born%20June,of%20the%202014%20NFL%20Draft.) and Frank Ryan are guys who played in the NFL while obtaining and holding PhDs in mathematics from MIT and Rice respectively. Some people are just better than others. The idea of the dumb jock, and of the nebbish nerd, are copes designed to help people feel better about their own lacks.

I've never actually seen the movie, or read the book, it didn't seem like a plot that would interest me. But consider that as many as 80% of NFL players declare bankruptcy within three years of retirement [ETA: This number is probably wildly inflated, but it points to the general concept that a non-HoF level NFL player typically goes from making millions to making almost nothing in a year when they retire]. It is very common for players to think the money will never stop, to spend themselves into game-day paycheck to game-day paycheck, for their career to run out earlier than they thought, and next thing you know they're broke. It is quite likely that Oher is looking for alternative sources of revenue.

Simultaneously, he will never ever escape the movie. Even if he had been a truly great NFL player, he would always be "that guy from The Blind Side." As the poem goes, O-Line isn't a famous position for anyone other than Jason Kelce:

You'll note the life of Dick Szymanski

Is not all roses and romanski.

He centers the ball, he hears a roar-

Is it a fumble or a score?

He accomplishes amazing feats.

And what gets photographed? His cleats.

Ultimately, he quickly became a top 1000 O-Line player in the world, a fringe guy hanging around the edges of the NFL, rather than a top 150 player in the world who starts for an NFL team. For virtually any NFL player, they have defined their life by football for a decade or more. In high school he's the best player on their team, in college he's royalty. The end of their career becomes a crisis of self-definition, who am I if I'm not a football player? The lucky ones become coaches or commentators, the rest have no good answer to the question. Oher faces the additional obstacle towards his identity, he faces the Oscar-Winning film, he's stuck. In every room he enters he is "that dumb kid from the movie" before he is even "Super Bowl Winning Baltimore Raven." Even the sympathetic articles introduce him primarily by the movie, rather than as a starter in two Super Bowls. Viewed in this light, I suspect this is more of a tragic personal lashing-out played on a national gossip circuit. It's sad to me, and even worse that race is going to get dragged into it.

In general, when I see a celeb complaining about the contracts they signed early in their career, my prior is that they hit their sell-by date and can't understand what happened and they are lashing out. From Tab Hunter to Ke$ha, products of systems think they did it all themselves and wonder why the system claims so much of their money.

In my experience very good student athletics are slightly smarter than the average of their peer group. Most athletic performance benefits from intelligence, whether it's anticipating the path of a ball in flight or predicting an opponents' next move. Being stupid is at the very least limiting, and for some positions and games it's disqualifying.

I'd also say intelligence benefits from clarity of mind, enhanced through good cardio.

The discipline needed for regular athletic training would also presumably have some potential flow onto study habits.

The reality is human traits aren't distributed fairly.

100%. It's not points buy, it's roll 3d6 in order.

The NFL bankruptcy thing is a bit like the sexual assault thing in college. It’s not that reliable. I found this. Especially since it includes “financial stress”. A udfa guy might get a 15k signing bonus. If he ends up working a $40k a year college grad job I would probably say “financial stress”.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/theres-a-difference-between-broke-and-bankrupt-for-ex-nfl-players/

One thing I find funny in the study is it lists 45% of nfl athletes who played more than 3 years have at some point lost a significant amount on a financial investment. Which is meaningless. Ken Griffin says he’s lost $70 billion in various bets in markets (and make 100 elsewhere). So that question would include him and basically every VC guy.

Most arguments in the US have some variant of this. The obese mother of 3 who is "choosing between eating and paying the electric bill"... To me she's suffering from hypermacronutrition. To the NYT? Food insecurity.

If the straightforward issue such as hunger or poverty isn't true they make up an alternative, meaningless term.


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