site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   35350 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 26, 2022

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.

26
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The trial of Darrell Brooks is set to start this coming Monday, October 3. Brooks is accused of running over 77 people at the Waukesha Christmas Parade.

Brooks will be representing himself. His motion to do so was granted today. There have been a few entertaining / exasperating videos of Brooks and the Judge going back and forth on this matter.

Brooks believes himself to be a sovereign citizen. In one of the videos he's crossed out the words "I understand" and replaced them with "I have been informed of." These were on a form he had to sign that warned him of the perils of self-representation. It turns out this is a sovereign citizen thing. They believe that to say "I understand" means that they "stand under" the court and are subject to its authority. In the video granting his motion the judge finds that "I have been informed of" is functionally equivalent to "I understand" and Brooks objects, saying he never said those words.

Culture war angle: this was a big culture war story last year as people perceived the attack as both under-covered and when it was covered, downplayed. The Rittenhouse case got many orders of magnitude more coverage and had an order of magnitude fewer victims.

Additionally, on the videos I discovered that YouTube tacks on a link to the sovereign citizen movement page on Wikipedia, giving it the same treatment as COVID-19 misinformation.

The Rittenhouse case got many orders of magnitude more coverage and had an order of magnitude fewer victims.

Indeed--there was only one victim, and he didn't even die!

One fascinating aspect of the sovereign citizen "movement" is that, while it is certainly fringe, it's wildly all over place in terms of "nearest point of more mainstream thought." You get people that would otherwise be considered extreme libertarians, extreme leftists, extreme traditionalists, whatever, that have all decided to pick up this particular collection of unusual beliefs. One example is the Moorish sovereign citizens, if you prefer the black-separatist flavor.

Am I misremembering or are you speaking figuratively? Didn't Rittenhouse kill 2 and wound one?

Kyle Rittenhouse was the victim of repeated attempts to murder him. Two of the people who tried to kill him died as a result of his exemplary self-defense (and a third was wounded). Referring to his attackers as "victims" is a wee bit obscene, which is why I didn't assume that's what the OP meant. I may have tried for some cleverness in my phrasing, but I meant precisely what I said, exactly not figuratively.

Yes, if I had read closely I maybe would have figured it out.

Discussing "the case" though, I had already read victim descriptively, meaning simply "those the court decided were victims" because that's how the word is used. (You allude to this when you note a different, objective-morals sense of victim).

Thanks for the clarification

meaning simply "those the court decided were victims"

The court did not decide that any of that. This was a jury trial, so the court was not making determination here. Instead, it was the prosecution who claimed that those killed by Rittenhouse were victims. The jury unanimously rejected that.

You're right, my brain was thinking "those the state decided were victims" and I ignored the shades of nuance within the state.

I am occasionally guilty of attempted cleverness, but if asked to explain myself, I am also often willing to do so at great length. So...uh...fair warning, I guess? Though if you are here, walls of text are probably acceptable.

I would venture that he's denying victim status to the two people Rittenhouse killed and the third he wounded - Rittenhouse being the victim. From the conservative perspective, they were aggressors who happened to aggress someone holding a loaded weapon.

From the conservative perspective, they were aggressors who happened to aggress someone holding a loaded weapon.

I find this a strange statement. What about this is particular to the conservative perspective? I wasn't under the impression that someone's perception of the physics of an altercation was all that defined by someone's political perspective. E.g. I'm not a conservative, and having watched a video of the encounter, from my perspective, they were aggressors who happened to aggress (upon) someone holding a loaded weapon.

In theory, it shouldn't be. But self-defense law contains some statements that are open-ended (really all laws contain such statements, because natural languages are ambiguous). And one's political view could influence how you read and interpret these phrases. Now, some people seem to go much further and just don't know what the law says at all, and seem to think that you can (and should) only use a gun in self-defense against someone who doesn't also have a gun if you already have been stabbed or beaten and are imminently going to die. AFAIK this is not the law in any US state. However, the actual principles behind self-defense will include phrases like "reasonable belief." What is reasonable? Different people could disagree. One person might say that if you are a minor, and an adult is running after you, yelling at you, and throwing things at you, that you reasonably believe they are trying to (and able to) harm you, while another might say that isn't a reasonable belief. Or the law will contain terms like "reasonable means to escape." Again, what is reasonable?

However, the actual principles behind self-defense will include phrases like "reasonable belief." What is reasonable? Different people could disagree. One person might say that if you are a minor, and an adult is running after you, yelling at you, and throwing things at you, that you reasonably believe they are trying to (and able to) harm you, while another might say that isn't a reasonable belief. Or the law will contain terms like "reasonable means to escape." Again, what is reasonable?

Indeed, but none of this seems conservative to me. Just knowing basic scientific facts about biology and physics, my conclusion is that the video I saw of Rittenhouse shooting and killing someone was an example of self-defense in the face of aggressors aggressing upon someone who was holding a loaded weapon. What about this is specifically conservative?

What about this is specifically conservative?

In my opinion, nothing (and it's not limited to conservatives either--I'm libertarian and it looks to me like Rittenhouse was fairly clearly acting in self-defense). Self-defense is a basic human right. But even basic human rights are politically charged these days. While I don't think I can steel-man the case that Rittenhouse was definitely guilty of murder, let me offer a few observations:

  1. From the liberal point of view, carrying a gun is itself an aggressive act. There was a lot of this at the time, people desperately trying to make legal (or debatably technically illegal, but not in a way that is relevant to self defense) open carry into a provocation. This is one of those things that is just invented and has no basis in law.

  2. 2 of the people Rittenhouse shot were not carrying guns. If you are not familiar with guns except from movies and think of a gun as a magical death machine that mows down all opposition no matter what, and don't realize the damage that a blow to the head with a skateboard (or being jumped on while on the ground) can do, then using a firearm in such a situation is a substantial escalation. I think this is mostly a factual mistake, supplemented by tribally targeted sympathy. Relatedly...

  3. There was probably a lot of tribalism. AFAIK, no one who thought Rittenhouse was guilty also thought that the McMichaels engaged in reasonable self-defense against Ahmaud Arbery, even though in my opinion Arbery and Rittenhouse were in fairly similar circumstances. Again, much was made of Rittenhouses's alleged connections to "militia groups" and his alleged political opinions were supposed to be evidence that he went looking for protesters to shoot. So they assumed, based on those things, that he was more likely to be the aggressor.

From the conservative perspective

Well, also from the jury's own unanimous perspective, and therefore from the perspective of the criminal justice system.

Let's not overstate what a jury verdict means. The jury was instructed that "The burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act lawfully in self defense. And, you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt from all the evidence in the case that the circumstances of the defendant's conduct showed utter disregard for human life."

It is standard that the state has the burden of proving that a defendant did NOT act in self-defense. So, any acquittal on self-defense grounds says little about what the jury thought of the defendant, and certainly is not an indication that they decided that he was the "real victim" nor that the decedent was the "real bad guy." And, it is certainly possible for both sides to be acting in reasonable self-defense; had Rittenhouse been killed by one of those whom he shot, his killer probably also would have been acquitted. But that would not mean that the jury decided that that killer was the "real victim" and that Rittenhouse was in the wrong.

We're splitting hairs at this point, but the fact remains that the US criminal justice system has an established process and standard to decide when people are victims, and the system concluded in this case that Rittenhouse was the victim and these other individuals were not, because that conclusion (to within the standard burden of proof) was required for the outcome that obtained.

No, the fact remains that the a finding that Rittenhouse was the victim and the others were not was NOT required for the outcome. That is literally what it means to say that the state had the burden of proving that he was not acting in self-defense.

Edit: That is why an acquittal on self-defense grounds does not prevent a subsequent civil case against the defendant:

When the first suit is a criminal prosecution resulting in an acquittal, the courts almost unanimously hold that there should be no preclusive effect given the acquittal in a subsequent civil action. A recent case, which arose in Maryland, will serve to illustrate the application of this rule. In United States v. Burns, the government brought an interpleader action to determine the distribution of the proceeds of a National Service Life Insurance policy. The widow of the insured had been acquitted of the murder of her husband on the theory of self-defense. In the interpleader action it was held that the acquittal was not preclusive, and the theory of self-defense which was accepted in the first suit was rejected. Despite the acquittal, the court found that the wife murdered her husband and was not entitled to the insurance proceeds. [¶] Although this result seems unduly harsh and illogical at first glance, there is a valid explanation which justifies it. In criminal actions the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt," while in civil actions the burden is proof by "a preponderance of the evidence." Therefore, an acquittal in the former action serves to show only that the government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. This does not mean that the more lenient civil burden of preponderance of the evidence could not have been satisfied. Therefore, a party in a subsequent civil action should not be precluded from attempting to prove an issue by a preponderance of evidence merely because the government did not support the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I believe this is a slight simplification. After all, claiming self-defense is relatively rare. Given an altercation without video or additional witnesses, how could you ever convict someone who just claimed self-defense? I think that there is some (relatively minor, but still existent) hurdle the defendant has to pass before being allowed to claim self-defense, and only then does "reasonable doubt" apply.

Yes, there has to be some evidence of self-defense in order to get the issue before the jury. That can be the defendant's own testimony, but the jury of course can decline to believe the defendant. If they don't believe him, then that is enough to convict. The People have proven their case by convincing the jury that the defendant is lying.

So, any acquittal on self-defense grounds says little about what the jury thought of the defendant, and certainly is not an indication that they decided that he was the "real victim" nor that the decedent was the "real bad guy."

The post to which you're replying was quoting a part that was referring to:

they were aggressors who happened to aggress someone holding a loaded weapon.

Which is different from any statement about who's a "real victim" or the "real bad guy." Given that the jury decided that the prosecutors were unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse did not act in self defense, it seems reasonable to conclude that all the evidence they saw led them to conclude that, beyond a reasonable doubt, Rittenhouse's actions were a response against aggressors by someone holding a loaded weapon.

seems reasonable to conclude that all the evidence they saw led them to conclude that, beyond a reasonable doubt, Rittenhouse's actions were a response against aggressors by someone holding a loaded weapon

No, it is not reasonable to infer that, because that turns the burden of proof around and places it on the defendant. If, for the sake of argument, "beyond a reasonable doubt" means 95% sure, you are saying that the verdict implies that the jury was 95 pct sure that Rittenhouse's actions were a reasonable response to aggressors, when in fact all it means is that they were more than 6 pct sure.

That's a fair point, and I was erroneous when I wrote "beyond a reasonable doubt" there. Rather, what I should have written was that the evidence led the jury to conclude that, by the criminal justice system's standards, Rittenhouse's actions were a response against aggressors by someone holding a loaded weapon.

More comments

; had Rittenhouse been killed by one of those whom he shot, his killer probably also would have been acquitted.

Why? All those that were injured or killed by Mr. Rittenhouse started the altercation. Seems like a loophole to be allowed to legally kill people, if they decide to fight back.

Because 1) The exact roles of everyone involved was in dispute; and 2) the situation was chaotic in general; and 3) here is the instruction given to the jury on the issue of self defense by an initial aggressor:

You should also consider whether the defendant provoked the attack. A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack, and who does provoke an attack, is not allowed to use or threaten force in self-defense against that attack. However, if the attack which follows causes the person reasonably to believe that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, he may lawfully act in self-defense. But the person may not use or threaten force intended or likely to cause death unless he reasonably believes he has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm.

Notice that "starting the altercation" is not enough; the person must have been engaged in "unlawful conduct," and even if he does, if the other person uses what the initiator reasonably believes to a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm, all that means is that the initiator loses the right to "stand his ground."

Given all that, and given that the burden is on the government to prove,** beyond a reasonable doubt**, that the defendant was NOT acting in self-defense, the govt would have a hard time getting a conviction of anyone involved. Not impossible, certainly, but definitely an uphill battle, in this particular case. Again, I am not saying that they SHOULD be acquitted, but rather only that the probably WOULD be acquitted.

Wouldn't Rosenbaum's verbal threats, eg "if I catch any of you f**kers alone, I’ll f**king kill you," combined with his "starting the altercation" when he encountered Rittenhouse alone later in the night make it much easier in at least Rosenbaum's case? If not, that seems like a gaping hole in the law that desperately needs to be fixed.

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