site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   26549 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 6, 2024

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The Trump DoJ has released a summary of FACE Act prosecutions and their tactics during the Biden administration.

There's some subtle stuff, here:

  • it's nice to actually have in-their-own-writing admission that the feds used aggressive arrest warrants to secure evidence without a separate search warrant, Exhibit 147,
  • even where the defendant had committed to voluntarily surrender, Exhibit 146,
  • and used heavy pressure and threat of 8 USC 241 to go after the defendant's gun rights for nonviolent nonfelony behavior, Exhibit 119.
  • attempted to select jurors based on religious beliefs, which isn't illegal in most courts under Batson and progeny, but stinks to high heaven.

And probably a lot of other stuff I'm missing from speedreading or because I don't care much about abortion law. But most of it's pretty unsurprising to long-time critics. The DoJ and FBI lied to Congress? Oh, somebody go better tell Louis Freeh that they're stepping on his copyright.

A more... enraging behavior is that the Biden administration had the specific information comparing pro-abortion and anti-abortion FACE prosecutions, provided it to pro-abortion groups proactively, and did not provide it to anti-abortion individuals who requested it for their criminal defenses (or, separately, a sitting congressman), even as trial deadlines against the DOJ closed in. The DoJ pointed to FOIA request options, and as far as I can tell didn't actually fulfill those FOIA requests when they came in. That chart is pretty damning, now that we can actually see it... and it still probably wouldn't have been enough to bring a selective prosecution defense successfully, and it's kinda messy how Brady attaches to selective prosecution defenses and this part of a trial and where the right hand can pretend the left doesn't know what's going on.

It's still worth remembering that it's the room temperature.

There's some morbidly funny turnabout is fair play stuff going on right now (afaik, the Trump admin policy hasn't even been stayed/enjoined/tro'd/mandamus/boesburg'd yet!). There's probably a deeper dive that could be drawn into a top-level post.

But the simple answer is this. There is undoubtedly some salami-slicing, here. Nevertheless, there is also clear evidence of the Biden administration requested, and getting, severe sentences for anti-abortion nonviolent protesters, even where the bad conduct had already been punished under state law, while requesting minimal or less-than-minimal sentences for pro-abortion protesters. Worse, the three pro-abortion cases were only initiated well after the discrepancy in prosecution had become well-known, and seem to have been farmed solely to pretend equal coverage.

You may notice that there is no religious prosecutions column. That's not because everybody forgot to ask about it. They did ask, and they got zero.

There is no mention of Noata.

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