site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30446 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 13, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Update on the Paul Kessler death from last week (link to Gattsurus post from last week's thread):

Police have arrested the Palestinian supporting computer science professor that allegedly swung a megaphone at Kessler; a pro-Israel counter protestor, resulting in the latter falling down and hitting his head leading to death.

"Loay Alnaji, 50, was taken into custody Thursday morning and is charged with involuntary manslaughter and battery causing serious bodily injury, officials said."

...

"Alnaji, of Moorpark, was being held Thursday night on $1 million bail, according to online records."

...

"Both charges he faces are felonies, the Ventura County District Attorney's Office said. It said both counts have special allegations that Alnaji personally inflicted great bodily injury,which is a type of enhancement.

...

"California penal code defines involuntary manslaughter as when someone is killed by an unlawful act less severe than a felony or by a lawful act that might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution."

I know there was a fair bit of speculation around whether he would or would not be charged, but it seems like the cops think they might have enough evidence to make this stick (even though they are still asking people to come forward if they were a witness or have video). Either that or they've decided they'd better do everything they can to dodge the political consequences of not prosecuting with so much signal boosting from jewish advocacy groups.

@gattsuru linked an earlier post by @FCfromSSC that opines that Blue Tribers are less likely to face consequences of these sorts of scuffles. If that theory is correct than perhaps Jewish Zionists still rate higher than Palestinians on the progressive stack and in situations like this the lower ranking Blue Triber will face punishment more like the Red Tribe.

Also, if you're going to go to a protest and be a maskless speaker it seems like you should do whatever you can to avoid scuffling. Without a mask Alnaji didn't have the option of leaving the scene with his anonymity intact.

A California Superior Court judge ruled Wednesday that there is enough evidence for Moorpark College professor/pro-Hamas agitator Loay Alnaji to go to trial on charges of manslaughter in the death of Paul Kessler, a Jewish man who was involved in a counterprotest on November 5, 2023. Alnaji was involved in a confrontation with Kessler on that Sunday afternoon when he allegedly hit Kessler in the face with a bullhorn, causing Kessler to fall and fracture his skull. Kessler died approximately seven hours after the altercation...

Dr. Othon Mena, Assistant Chief Medical Examiner for Ventura County, conducted Kessler's autopsy and testified as to his findings. Mena found four exterior injuries to the left side of Kessler's face, along with a tear inside Kessler's mouth and damage to Kessler's tongue where he'd clenched his teeth, likely after being hit with the bullhorn. After examining the bullhorn and the grooved pattern of the rubber lip on the bottom of it, Mena concluded that the scrapes/lacerations to Kessler's left chin, left upper lip, and the outer corner of his left eye were caused by the bullhorn striking Kessler, and that the black eye noticeable on autopsy was either caused by the bullhorn strike or Kessler's subsequent fall.

Mena also testified that a 2-inch curvilinear tear on the back of Kessler's head and a skull fracture were caused by the assault or fall.

A crime lab technician testified that Kessler's DNA was found on three portions of the bullhorn: near the bottom, where a red/brown bloodstain was found, and in two sections of the bottom lip of the bullhorn.

Seems pretty conclusive about what killed him. Maybe the defense can try some angle about how the scuffle started.

Alternate explanation: the "progressive stack" theory continues to avoid paying rent.

By default, I assume that an on-camera killing is going to lead to an investigation and probably charges. I don't know what part of this scenario was supposed to override that.

@gattsuru linked an earlier post by @FCfromSSC that opines that Blue Tribers are less likely to face consequences of these sorts of scuffles. If that theory is correct than perhaps Jewish Zionists still rate higher than Palestinians on the progressive stack and in situations like this the lower ranking Blue Triber will face punishment more like the Red Tribe.

That's why the whole Israel / Palestine is such juicy culture war bait.

Western Jews are the most privileged group in the history of the world. But, because of positive in-group biases and working together, they have managed to get diversity carveouts that other whites have not.

The progressive stack is not about fairness, it's about power. Or, to quote Voltaire (maybe), "to find out who rules over you, ask who you are not allowed to criticize".

A lot of the current conflict is people noticing this and trying to apply the same standards to Jews that have heretofore only been applied to other whites. Nevertheless, I don't expect these new standards to stick. I expect the assaulter to face a heavy sentence.

they have managed to get diversity carveouts that other whites have not

When Robin DiAngelo says there should be "fewer white male CEOs", are Jewish men excluded from this list? Do Jews need a lower score on the MCAT than whites to get into medical school? When a Netflix production participates in a diversity initiative that means 30% of the crew need to be 'POC', do Jews count? When the federal government practices supplier preference in affirmative action, do non-Hispanic Ashkenazi Jews get the same preferences that black, hispanic, and even Asian entrepreneurs do? If Ta-Nehisi Coates calls gifted programs racist because they don't contain enough non-white and non-Asian POC, are Jews in the included group, or the excluded one? In a workplace program where white employees are subject to additional diversity training while black employees get to chill out in the 'affinity group space', do the Jews in the office usually go to the former, or the latter?

If anything, dissident rightists are often most upset that they don’t get put in a special pool other than Jews, because when put into the white pool Jews have disproportionately outcompeted them for many decades.

In 99% of 'white privilege' cases in DEI terms, Jews count as white and are treated as such. Every POC thinks that Jews are white, as do most whites. (As do most Jews, if you go by both polling and census data!) That's not surprising, nor is that America's greatest crusader against affirmative action, who single-mindedly pursued it for decades (unlike many gentile whites, who mostly didn't care) until he won this year, is Jewish.

Or, to quote Voltaire (maybe), "to find out who rules over you, ask who you are not allowed to criticize"

As the classic reply goes, ‘kids with Down syndrome?’

Agree with everything you said, but Jews are allowed to organize for their own benefit and defense whereas non-Jewish whites are generally not. It's a hate crime to paint a swastika on a synagogue, but calls to kill whitey are generally met with shrugs.

To make another point...

Once we take away Jews, what percentage of college Presidents are white? What percentage of gentile whites are being admitted to Harvard? The dominance of Jews in the elite space is sucking up much of the quota reserved for whites.

And, for the record, I have no problem with the success of Jews. My friend group is dominated by Jewish people, and I think their success is mostly due to superiority of intellect. (Let's say 80% intellect, 20% clannishness). But if we are going to start leveling in a sort of Harrison Bergoron way, I don't think it's fair that Jews get a hugely disproportionate amount of the white quota. And, yes, it's a quota.

The best world is a race-blind world. But once we start noticing, then I don't want to be in the one group that it's allowed to discriminate against when there is a much more successful group right next door.

Agree with everything you said, but Jews are allowed to organize for their own benefit and defense whereas non-Jewish whites are generally not.

Yes, they are, they’re just not allowed to use the words ‘gentile whites’ to describe themselves. This is because gentile whites are a heterogeneous group mostly defined by things that they aren’t- with some exceptions, homogenous groups of white gentiles are allowed to organize in their own defense. It’s tragic that white southerners aren’t, but ultimately that’s because of anti-southern prejudice and not because of race communism or philosemitism.

Yes, they are, they’re just not allowed to use the words ‘gentile whites’ to describe themselves.

This is your reminder that "It's okay to be white" flyers posted on a university campus resulted in FBI involvement.

I have zero desire to organize based on my race. That doesn't change the fact that actually doing so is social/political/legal suicide.

Please tell me which group I can join as a straight, white American man? That's the most specific ethnic group I am a member of. I can't join the local Polish, Swedish, or Italian lodge. I am not those things. Basically, we're telling 20% of people in the US that they aren't allowed to have a grievance identity but everyone else is.

Please tell me which group I can join as a straight, white American man?

The republican Party? your local church group? the VFW? the Chive?

I find it difficult to believe that this question is being asked sincerely, and if it is, well fuck there is your problem. If you're defining yourself in terms of grievance and identity politics and expecting that to provide you with validation, you've already fucked up.

You are correct that I am not looking to join an identity grievance group.

That's why I want all the other identity grievance groups (which represent something like 80% of the population) to disband. Especially when some of the groups (like the ADL) represent people who are far more privileged than the group I belong to.

When a huge majority of the population is represented by a grievance group, it stops become about defending the rights of minorities and starts becoming about discriminating against the one minority that can't join one.

You need to accept that you can't contol what you can't control. Associate with people worth associating with and let the rest go.

There are plenty of mostly white groups that stick up for their members(lots of cultural Christian or rural groups, for example), and while progressives may not like them very much it also won’t get you canceled to join them.

Sure you can. It's just called the Club. It's just based on economic class rather than race; but anyone in the club is HwHite by association. The poor whites (the trash ones, that is. Everyone with less than 10 million dollars) are supposed to act as foot soldiers for their betters and not get uppity.

If you want a group basic on your racial identity and only your racial identity, you can found one. It's be pretty incoherent though, because if you are allowed in I am also allowed in, and I am a communist and also probably not actually the same race as you. eg, the Mut category isn't a recognized breed.

  • -12

Or, to quote Voltaire (maybe), "to find out who rules over you, ask who you are not allowed to criticize".

It was a neo-nazi convicted pedophile named Kevin Alfred Strom.

Doesn't really change the message now does it?

That's hilarious. Please tell me he also said "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent".

Part of my post and point was that Kessler was a Blue Triber, and the extent the incident was so concerning was that this was a Blue-on-Blue incident. To whatever limited extent the "progressive stack" makes sense when talking about social dynamics or minor crimes (a la the inevitable bike comic) applying it wholesale to a case where someone died struck me as a pretty serious escalation. And even for minor crimes, I'm not sure the "progressive stack" is a great model.

Here, if he's found guilty (or demonstrated innocent or not-likely-guilty at trial), it shouldn't surprise you. That's what people were highlighting at length as what death demanded during the Rittenhouse or Gardner catastrophes. It was something to update on when Dolloff wasn't prosecuted; you can't be shocked both ways at once.

The question isn't "is he found guilty", the question is "is he found guilty and punished similarly to how a red triber would have been".

Wasn’t the black woman appointed as new editor of Teen Vogue a couple years fired because she made some homophobic comments on Twitter? Typically being a WOC, especially a black woman, outranks LGBT (maybe excluding trans) on the progressive stack, but in this case it wasn’t enough.

Being higher (or is it lower?) on the stack doesn’t prevent you from getting cancelled, it’s entirely feasible to imagine a gay black transwoman getting cancelled for making fun of people in wheelchairs for example, even though she typically outranks them unless they’re also gay black transwomen (which they likely aren’t).

The progressive stack isn’t about whether you get cancelled for breaking the rules, it’s about whether other people get cancelled for coming for you.

Half black, and I believe it was over some comments regarding Asians.

Can one of our resident legal minds tell me if $1 million bail is normal for this kind of charge?

Per this article, "At his later arraignment in Ventura County Court, Alnaji's bail amount was reduced to $50,000, and he was ordered to surrender his passports, Fox News Digital has learned."

I am not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice, but I think it's high.

Ventura County's presumptive bail schedule is here. While that schedule is for initial arrests without a warrant, before seeing a judge, the 192(b) presumptive bail of 50,000 USD isn't meaningless as a motion around the typical case. By contrast, it's comparable to the original bail for the guy charged for the Ghost Ship fire (later reduced further between the first and second trial), and that was for three-dozen counts of involuntary manslaughter (albeit with an even less clear responsibility). There's been cases so clear-cut that judges just refuse to issue bail for involuntary manslaughter, but release on recognisance can be an option too.

There's a few different allowed reasons to upgrade bail, but most of them revolve around either ensuring the safety of the public, threats to witnesses, seriousness of the offense, or risk of flight. The combination of an older victim and further charges down the road would be the first place my mind would go.

The schedule also calls for an additional $50k for the allegation that he personally inflicted great bodily injury.

That being said:

  1. Under CA law, bail decisions must be individualized. The schedule is at best a recommendation.
  2. I don't see any evidence that he has yet been arraigned, which is when the judge sets bail. The $1 million bail might be some sort of default amount, pending arraignment.
  3. Bail is going to be higher for someone with substantial assets.

I thought the procedure in California had the arrest warrants include bail? I guess that'd be magistrate rather than judge, though.

Yeah, but that is what I meant by a default amount. I don't know that judges are even bound by law at that stage. As a practical matter, they can do what they want, because that issue is probably never litigated; the arraignment occurs very soon after arrest -- within 48 hours of arrest if the defendant remains in custody -- that any challenge to the bail amount will be a challenge to the amount set at the arraignment.

https://www.lacourt.org/division/criminal/pdf/felony.pdf

Offered for reference at a nearby municipality. Here, all life sentences, the appropriate bail is listed as $1mm. Manslaughter would typically be lower, but Enhancements are offered for "hate crime" and "elderly victim" so between a little bit of this and a little bit of that, it's not shockingly high.

In a lot of places, judges have pretty much plenary power to set bail anyway.

Enhancements are offered for "hate crime" and "elderly victim"

But only if those are alleged, which they do not seem to be. Plus, the elderly victim enhancement applies only to "crime[s] enumerated in Penal Code sections 667.9-667.10", and neither battery nor manslaughter is listed there.

Maybe the defendant is affluent?

If that theory is correct than perhaps Jewish Zionists still rate higher than Palestinians on the progressive stack and in situations like this the lower ranking Blue Triber will face punishment more like the Red Tribe.

I don't understand how this logic works. And honestly hate to see it.

If one's oppressed ranking is the one and the only thing that matters, then sure you can make such an inference. You can make a case, even a strong case that said ranking is a sizeable if not significant factor in how the law handles their cases contingent on locality, etc. But you would need a particular kind/magnitude of partisan brain rot to assert its decided entirely on that.

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