site banner

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

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.

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" .

He did not say "switched places." He specifically predicated his statement on the fact that they were in different "places" -- that the crowd ckearly had reason to think that Rittenhouse was a threat. And, they did. Just as Rittenhouse turned out to have reasonably acted in self-defense. They all acted in reasonable self-defense. His point was simply that it was obvious in the crowd's case, but not obvious in Rittenhouse's case. Ie, while Rittenhouse had a colorable claim to self-defense, the crowd's case was far beyond colorable.

More comments