site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   27132 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 6, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

MSNBC reports:

Man dies after hitting head during Israel and Palestinian rallies in California, officials say. Witnesses said Paul Kessler fell and struck his head during a confrontation with protesters Sunday in Ventura County, the sheriff's department said. He died Monday.

Authorities in Ventura County, California, are investigating the death of a Jewish man who was injured during a confrontation at dueling rallies over Israel and Gaza died Monday, the sheriff’s department said. Witnesses said Paul Kessler, 69, "was in a physical altercation with counter-protestor(s)," the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department said in a statement. "During the altercation, Kessler fell backwards and struck his head on the ground,” it said.

What a horrible freak acci-

Paul Kessler, 69, died at a hospital on Monday, a day after he was struck during pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian demonstrations at an intersection in Thousand Oaks, a suburb northwest of Los Angeles, authorities said.

Witnesses said Kessler was involved in a “physical altercation” with one or more counter-protesters, fell backward and struck his head on the ground, according to a statement from the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department. An autopsy Monday said Kessler died from a blunt force head injury and it was homicide, according to the Sheriff’s Department, which said investigators hadn’t ruled out the possibility that the act was a hate crime.

Well, it's unfortunate and tragic to have a real-world example of the eggshell skull rule, but (ed: cw, video of a man dying)-

A witness to the pro-Palestine protest that led to the death of Jewish man Paul Kessler today railed against local police for not arresting the man Kessler argued with - as new video shows the protest continued on even after police arrived at the scene... Witnesses say he and an as-yet unnamed Palestine supporter started arguing, and that it led to the man hitting Kessler in the face with his megaphone.

A police officer is seen on video asking an unidentified man, who is unconfirmed if this is the suspect, 'So you tried to hit his phone?' With law enforcement in the background, protesters are heard chanting, 'You will burn in hell; Israel will burn in hell.'

Another anti-Semitic chant can be heard, 'Hitler didn't want you, Hitler didn't want you, Hitler didn't want you, Hitler should've smashed you.'

Oh.

Nor does the potential for things to get out of hand seem like it was a surprise (ed: cw, video of a man dying):

The man holding the flag in the photo above allegedly lifted up his shirt to show that he had a pistol in his waistband during the October 29 protest at the same corner (Thousand Oaks Boulevard and Westlake Boulevard, just north of the 101 Freeway). Police were called to the scene, but the man left before they arrived.

It's still possible that Kessler's death had some complications, if extraordinarily unlikely. This is Ventura County rather than LA proper, so I think there's at least a chance that genuine prosecution could happen should the death be clear manslaughter or negligent homicide. The suspect has at least been stopped and questioned and is supposedly cooperating, though the amazing lack of any video of the 'confrontation' itself seems to be a complicating factor.

There's no outrage from the conventional sources, or the Biden or White House twitter accounts. There's nothing from the various ACLUs; quite a lot of people who I respected and had strong feelings on political radicalization must not have heard of it. The communities that spent a lot of time hunting down fascists and Nazis to punch and dox don't seem particularly interested by literal invocations of Hitler. And the lack of any arrest despite a clear suspect makes a bit of a mockery of all the people who in the Rittenhouse era proclaimed that any death required a prosecution and a trial. I guess to their credit (if damning with faint praise), the ADL has posted.

I've written at length about the extent and efforts pushing speech and speakers out of the public square have gone, and it's difficult to see this outside of that context. Worse, the lack of backlash seems a justification and legitimization of that behavior.

Which seems noteworthy in a few ways. There's no shortage of right-wing or Red Tribe examples, but Kessler, notably, was not. I'm not a fan of perspectives where only the cleanest hands make acceptable figures to bring forward -- to borrow from Mencken, defending freedom sometimes means defending scoundrels -- but I'll spell out when even that does not seem to be enough. It's not about X as a principle goes to this.

And at a deeper level... @FCfromSSC did a very good tactical analysis of the situation around violence at public protests in the context of the De Oñate Statue shooting. I don't want to extrapolate too hard from this case yet because it could end in a hard conviction next month. But it's looking, if anything, too rosy.

I think the article from Forward is pretty good about a facts-only assessment:

[Ventura County Sheriff] said that the nature of the altercation — including “who the aggressor was” — remained unclear because of conflicting statements about what had occurred and a lack of definitive video evidence.

Some of the witnesses were pro-Palestine, while others were pro-Israel,” Fryhoff said. “During the investigation at the scene, deputies determined that Mr. Kessler fell backward and struck his head on the ground. What exactly transpired prior to Mr. Kessler falling backward isn’t crystal clear right now.”

And perhaps his head just did that.

As I said in the post, which describes those details along with videos that the Forward seems to have missed, "still possible that Kessler's death had some complications, if extraordinarily unlikely". My point is a bit broader. I can remember a certain situation that was far more in favor of the homicide suspect and yet resulted in not just the suspect being arrested and jailed but having to post a multi-million-dollar bail.

Why would it be “extraordinarily unlikely” that there are mitigating factors or extenuating circumstances for a claimed manslaughter/homicide during a heated protest? IMO this should be the default opinion unless there’s very persuasive evidence. I’m thinking back to Rittenhouse, some of the Unite the Right charges, the Covington Catholic Kids… protests always get raucous for heated issues.

What we know is that: (1) the police lack evidence to charge him, despite the passioned pleas of local Jewish orgs, plus national spotlight on the police; (2) the altercation took place on the Palestinian side, which greatly increases the odds of the Jewish man having instigated the conflict (what was he doing “encroaching on their land”? There’s clear borders put in place by the authorities, the yellow tape*); (3) the Palestinians say one thing happened and the Jews another, yet the Palestinians were right next to the altercation, and thus their opinion outweighs the Jewish one; (4) the Muslim man said he tried to hit the phone, which tells us less than one might think, because placing a phone right in front of someone’s face aggressively is certainly grounds for swiping it away; (5) the Palestinian man immediately acted like a Good Samaritan and called the hospital plus cooperated with authorities.

edit on second look it’s unclear whether the tape was there before or after

Redefining a public space into "their land" where putting a phone at someone face is unacceptable is a good part of what I'm criticizing.

Your post is very clearly criticizing what you mistakenly believe to be a clear-cut case of a criminal act on the part of the Palestinian man. That’s why you include the testimony of someone from the Israeli side, omit the more authoritative testimony of the police chief which negates the former, and why you sarcastically write “what a freak acci-“ and an emphatic “oh”.

But it’s just not clear cut right now. That’s not my opinion, it’s the words of the Sheriff who possesses maximal information.

No one is “redefining a public space” here, we are using the limited information we have to make preliminary judgments on who is likely the instigator.

No one is “redefining a public space” here, we are using the limited information we have to make preliminary judgments on who is likely the instigator.

...

(2) the altercation took place on the Palestinian side, which greatly increases the odds of the Jewish man having instigated the conflict (what was he doing “encroaching on their land”? There’s clear borders put in place by the authorities, the yellow tape);

While I agree with the Rittenhouse verdict, the comparison doesn't work. Rittenhouse intentionally killed two people; when someone does that in circumstances other than those where self-defense is completely obvious (eg, defense of home), of course he is going to be arrested. In contrast, here there is no evidence that the killing was intentional. Moreover, the police had probable cause at the time to think that the Rittenhouse murders were premeditated.

Moreover, the police had probable cause at the time to think that the Rittenhouse murders were premeditated.

How so?

I think showing up to a protest armed merits some increased suspicion.

When someone is killed, the more effort it took to get into that situation, the less likely it was an accident.

  • -12

On the one hand, your logic is straightforward. On the other hand, you are saying that the lawful exercise of a constitutional right can establish probable cause that a person has broken the law. If I said that the content of a sign a protestor held or a slogan they shouted added up to probable cause, it seems to me that this would also be a straightforward logical argument. I don't expect you or @Gdanning to agree to that standard, though.

Yes, there’s a point at which lawful exercise establishes probable cause.*

What’s important is that the decision is made post facto. Given that two men died, Rittenhouse’s presence and equipment merited suspicion. In @Gdanning’s example, the Nazi larper is allowed to bear arms by a synagogue—but once police hear that there’s been a murder in the area, they have an obvious suspect.

This means yes, there is some protected speech which should constitute probable cause for arresting protestors once a crime has been committed. Or even before, judging by the “imminent lawless action” standard. If Mr. Alnaji had a “gas the Jews” sign, or was even reported joining some of the chants, I’d expect him to be taken in.

* If this is the wrong term, legally speaking, my apologies!

@netstack did not say that exercise of a constitutional right establishes probable cause. They said it increases suspicion. That is obviously true. I have the right to wear a Nazi outfit, and a right to bear arms, and a right to walk around near a synagogue. But that doesn't mean police have to ignore those things. Most facts which help establish probable cause are themselves perfectly legal.

Can you name a blue-coded constitutionally-protected activity that clearly "increases suspicion" in a way that predictably results in significantly worse outcomes in the justice system? You've cited a Nazi uniform; what's the blue-tribe equivalent that observably results in harsher charges and higher bails, which you accept as just?

...This, of course, ignores the numerous cases where the arms leftists carried did not "increase suspicion" in an equivalent way, even when they were shooting at or killing people.

More comments

Because he came across state lines with a gun, and ended up shooting his political opponents. Again, based on facts that emerged, I do not think that he premeditated; in fact, I am sure that he did not, and I am sure that his acquittal was correct. But probable cause is quite a low bar, and of course is based on evidence known at the time of the arrest.

  • -10

Because he came across state lines with a gun

He didn't, the gun literally never left Wisconsin. Why do people keep repeating this one? And ehy do they keep making a big deal over him "crossing state lines" when his job was in Kenosha and it was 30 minutes away from his home. It's like if someone from NYC shot someone in Jersey City, no one would make a big deal out of it. He actually lived closer to Kenosha than the 3 people he shot.

I already talked about that; I meant what the police believed at the time, because that is all that is relevant to the issue of the arrest.

  • -10

You've given zero evidence for that though.

Hm.

I don't think 'he opposed their political position' is very strong evidence of murder, but maybe that's just me. He said he didn't mean to, and what the suspect claims is what really matters.

What element of murder is it that you think is satisfied by that video?

I don't. But I'm not the person who just said "ended up shooting his political opponents" was evidence of not just murder but premeditated murder!

More comments

Because he came across state lines with a gun

Please, why are you still repeating this in the year of Our Lord 2023?

Again, the point is what the police believed at the time.

Have they? Or was that something thoughtlessly repeated by the media (or even just Twitter)? He turned himself in, you think they didn't ask him where he got the gun from? You think they didn't believe him?

More comments

Good thing I linked to a New York Times article that made the self-defense arguments completely obvious!

Again, I believe that his acquittal was correct, but his guilt or innocence depends on a lot more than on just who fired first. Self-defense has quite a few complexities. For example, the guy in the car here was convicted of murder despite not firing first. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1655732/Video-Surveillance-footage-shows-shootout-killed-3-year-old-boy.html

And the New York Times article I've linked did not rest solely on who fired first.

Nevertheless, the idea that his self-defense claim was obviously correct is belied by the fact that the jury deliberated for several days.

Would you like to try again with a more serious argument about the facts of the case as available to the police at the time of Rittenhouse's arrest, or do you want me to rip through the various procedural problems and literal threats (and one high-profile attempt to identify the jurors by newscasters) aimed at that?

Rittenhouse intentionally killed two people; when someone does that in circumstances other than those where self-defense is completely obvious (eg, defense of home), of course he is going to be arrested.

Except the prosecutor in his case literally said he would not have prosecuted the protesters if they were the ones that killed Rittenhouse instead.

Assuming that is true, we are talking about the arrest stage, not the prosecution stage. Police make arrests, not prosecutors.

Assuming that is true

I wish @ArjinFerman had provided a reference, but I have the itch to look up ridiculous claims ... and what the hell, that was another thing that actually happened. The interview is here, with the money quote at 37:50:

"In my mind, if someone in that crowd had a gun and had shot and killed Kyle Rittenhouse, our office would not have prosecuted; our office would not have found that person criminally liable."

He provides some context, but it's not "self-defense is completely obvious" context, it's "remember when a gun owner stopped a mass shooting and then the cops blundered in and killed the hero" context, and that was supposed to be in support of his thesis. He claims Rittenhouse running away with his gun after killing Rosenbaum is sufficient reason to kill him ... but what else was Rittenhouse supposed to do? Drop his weapon for the angry mob to pick up? Not retreat? The idea that you can identify and kill an active shooter because you see them running past a ton of people without shooting any of them is such obvious nonsense; you'd hope he would stop and rethink his life after that came out of his mouth.

I can't believe this interview didn't get more play! The only relevant Google hits for 'binger rittenhouse "would not have prosecuted"' right now are the author's blog I linked, a single episode of a video podcast with 50k subscribers, a meme, and a tweet from this April.

I think you have excluded some of the context. What he says is, "From the crowd's perspective, that's how they viewed him [ie as an active shooter]. And that was a reasonable assumption on their part at that particular moment. ... After learning that he just shot someone, seeing him running through a crowded area with a gun that it would have been reasonable for ... the crowd to view him as an active shooter."

He claims Rittenhouse running away with his gun after killing Rosenbaum is sufficient reason to kill him ... but what else was Rittenhouse supposed to do

No, that is not what he says. He says it would have been reasonable for someone to believe that he could shoot him in self-defense or defense of others. It is important to bear in mind 1) if I reasonably believe someone is a threat, I can kill him in self-defense, even if I am mistaken;* and 2) it is perfectly possible for both parties to be acting in self-defense defense.

*"If the defendant kills an innocent person, but circumstances made it reasonably appear that the killing was necessary in self-defense, that is tragedy, not murder." People v. Minifie, 13 Cal. 4th 1055 (Cal: Supreme Court 1996).

it is perfectly possible for both parties to be acting in self-defense defense.

I might need to listen to the whole thing again, but from what I remember, he actually explicitly denies that, and argues one party must have a greater claim to self-defense, and that party was not Rittenhouse.

Anyway, none of this is relevant, the important claim is that he said his office would not prosecute if the mob ended up shooting him, rather than the other way around. If both parties have a claim to self-defense, than both parties should be prosecuted, or neither.

More comments

I wish @ArjinFerman had provided a reference, but I have the itch to look up ridiculous claims ... and what the hell, that was another thing that actually happened.

Sorry for wasting your time, usually when I make ridiculous claims, I have the source ready at my fingertips, so next time feel free to PM me.

I find it necessary, because if you provide sources from the start, people tend to build cases that the claim is, in fact, not ridiculous, and our glorious system is working as intended to provide justice for all. So I like to get people to contradict me first.

I can't believe this interview didn't get more play!

There's also a bunch of youtube lawyers that covered it. The funny thing is that I'm not sure if this is the worst thing he said there, the whole interview is insane.

we are talking about the arrest stage

This is false. We are also talking about the jailing and setting the bail stage.

Jailing is also done by the police, not the prosecutor. And we don't know what bail is going to be set for this new guy, so bail is irrelevant.

Sure it's relevant. Is it common for someone to be held in jail for longer than 48 hours when the prosecutors say there's no case? How many people who have their bail set to a million dollars or above end up being simply not prosecuted?

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats