site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   28372 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.

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.

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.

  • -13

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.

@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.

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.

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