site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   27159 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 New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

Peacefully protesting at the same time and place as other people are rioting (or where there is credible intelligence of a riot even if it hasn't started yet) is going to get you into trouble almost anywhere - there were cities where the police completely stopped policing in summer 2020, but that isn't the normal way "mostly peaceful protests" are policed, even in deep Blue cities.

If you count Blue client groups, being a young black man wearing gang colours is a constitutionally-protected activity that increases suspicion in the way you suggest.

Drug use isn’t federally protected, usually, but in states where it has been legalized, it still gets used as circumstantial evidence. A speeding ticket with a trunk full of marijuana is way less likely to get dismissed, as far as I know, and that’s a good thing.

Another option would be racketeering charges. They’re kind of the definition of converting suspicion and circumstance into charges, and I don’t think they’re particularly tribal.

Trying to find examples is a bit silly here. The biggest red flag is carrying a weapon because, you know, most murders involve a weapon. But political violence is rare enough that it doesn’t usually lead to a murder!

I do think there’s a history of nailing anybody for being armed near a crime scene; cops do not like seeing guns. So we could look at normal crime investigations, see people brought in under firearms suspicion, and then turning out to have outstanding warrants. It’s just not going to be particularly politicized.

results in harsher charges and higher bails, which you accept as just?

I didn't say anything about harsher charges and higher bails being just. I was making a purely empirical claim about the evidence that courts use to assess probable cause.

As for your "other team" silliness, see the use of rap lyrics to help establish probable cause for murder charges. That is protected speech which is used all the time, usually quite appropriately.

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!

It is evidence, albeit slight, of premeditation in every case. The issue in the recent case is whether it is evidence that it was murder at all. That is a different question.

Again, if more evidence surfaces that indicates that this professor acted very violently, or whatever, then that IG post might become highly relevant. But it isn't very relevant now. And the point is what police know at the time of arrest. A police officer who knows that someone who intentionally killed two people and shot another, and who then finds out that the victims are the shooter's enemies, would have to be a moron not to suspect premeditation, even if that suspicion turns out to be unfounded.

And that is why Grosskruetz was arrested for brandishing, right? We had video evidence of him aiming at a retreating man, he spoke both before and after at length about how he opposed what Rittenhouse was standing for, and it later turned out his concealed carry permit had been revoked -- he actually was breaking the law, and given the limited legal avenues to revoke CCWs in the state, probably not just in carrying concealed.

Or... that didn't happen, no one cared, and you can't even get media coverage of the whole "armed ACLU 'observer' nearly shot a teenager who was defending himself."

You've gotta recognize how naked this salami-slicing looks. We can't have someone walking the streets after they TOOK A GUN ACROSS STATE LINES because despite clear video evidence of self-defense because it's possible that he was really guilty. Meanwhile, applauding terrorists as heroes, we really have to give the benefit of the doubt until and unless specific evidence that he "acted very violently" because it might just be involuntary manslaughter.

Which, last I checked, was still pretty damned illegal.

I'm not making a statement for which way justice should go -- there's tradeoffs each direction! -- but come off it. It's clearly not the same standard for each case.

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?

You think they didn't believe him?

Do I think police do not believe the statements of murder suspects, which statements reduce their culpability? I do.

Regardless, the cases are not similar. In one, you have someone bringing a gun to a protest, and ending up intentionally killing two people. In the other, you have someone bringing a bullhorn to a protest, and, as far as we know, accidentally killing someone. Of course the police are going to treat the former differently than the latter. And that is true despite the fact that Rittenhouse turned out to have acted in self-defense.

Do I think police do not believe the statements of murder suspects, which statements reduce their culpability? I do.

So you think they haven't looked up who purchased, and who was the owner of a legal firearm that was involved in an incident they were investigating.

Do you have any evidence at all that the police ever believed the gun is from out of state?

Regardless, the cases are not similar.

If that claim was irrelevant, why did you bring it up to begin with?

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.

See my comment to your previous comment. He says the crowd had a stronger claim, which is true, because from what the crowd knew (which is all that matters) their claim would have been VERY strong, but he does not say that only one of them could have a valid claim.

Of course it is relevant; it is the basis of his statement re not charging the crowd.

He says the crowd had a stronger claim, which is true, because from what the crowd knew (which is all that matters) their claim would have been VERY strong,

It's not true, and it's not VERY strong. It's a subjective judgement call on his part that clearly shows bias.

Of course it is relevant; it is the basis of his statement re not charging the crowd.

The reason roystgnr had to look up the source of the claim is that it's ridiculous on it's face given what we all know about the facts of the matter. The fact that Binger can come up with an ad-hoc rationalization to justify his decision after the fact, doesn't make his decision any less ridiculous. Most people can come up with ad-hoc rationalizations like this.

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?

Dude, of course there was "a case." As I said, I think the acquittal was correct, but that does not change the fact that there was probable cause to charge him with murder. It is rather low bar:

A criminal complaint is a self-contained charge that must set forth facts within its four corners that are sufficient, in themselves or together with reasonable inferences to which they give rise, to allow a reasonable person to conclude that a crime was probably committed and the defendant is probably culpable . . . . To be sufficient, a complaint must only be minimally adequate. This is to be evaluated in a common sense rather than a hypertechnical manner, in setting forth the essential facts establishing probable cause.

State v. Dabney, 663 NW 2d 366 (Wis: Court of Appeals 2003).

Rittenhouse was treated just like every other defendant who 1) kills someone; and 2) has a colorable claim of self-defense.

Dude, do you understand that the prosecutor literally said there would have been "no case" if the Rittenhouse and any of the people from the mob that chased him switched places? Therefore he was not "treated just like every other defendant who 1) kills someone; and 2) has a colorable claim of self-defense" .

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