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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't think this is true at all, the people who are adversarially attacking the legal system are usually ... lawyers, it's their job, many mediocre arguments are made that judges have to understand and discard, and maybe some of the lawyers are committing sophisticated fraud, collusion, etc. Meanwhile, sovcits come in and talk like schizophrenics. Maybe the first sovereign citizen forced the system to stay honest in some way, like, make sure they have the proper procedure for handling nonsensical babble, but the next ten thousand aren't proving anything. If you're testing a program for vulnerabilities, sure, just feeding it random strings a few times (or more, computers are fast) to see if it crashes is useful! But when it does and you've fixed that, feeding it more random strings isn't going to catch anything. You need more subtle guided fuzzing or actually reading the code, understanding the mechanics and low level details, or prodding specific features for vulnerabilities in the course of use. Which sounds a lot like being a lawyer and not at all like sovcits.
The kind of attack I'm thinking of is, SovCit arguments are meaningfully distinct from nonsensical babble and incompetent/adversarial lawyers.
Nonsensical babble: you show up in court, get found incompetent, assigned a lawyer and removed from the courtroom or otherwise made to shut up. Easy to handle.
The differences between sovcits and very bad lawyers are less clear. Maybe you could treat them as an extreme case. I think Brooks is more likely than even the worst lawyer to invoke the fifth amendment when asked procedural questions, to refuse to follow judge instructions, and to "understand" anything. If Brooks has literally thousands of bad arguments to make, what will the judge do? If he starts repeating them, is someone keeping track? Brooks is representing himself pro se, he can't be disbarred.
The sane, boring, probably correct answer is to force him to accept the public defender after a few days of frustration. But they need a process for that, which is only in place because these people have made it necessary.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, if anything, the legal system is being extra nice to SovCits. They could easily be destroyed instantly for not filing the right form in the right way, get rekt. It is kind of a DoS based on the ability of the system to give people slack.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link