site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   29974 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 1, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

six justices in the majority looked at the Navy-SEALs-assassinate-a-rival hypothetical and went "yep, sounds right, no liability."

What happened yesterday if the President ordered a hit? The local deputy sheriff straddles up to the White House and places the President under arrest? District attorneys all over the country and New York and Hawaii bring suit?

Come on, if the President ordered a hit today, it would not result in everything shrugging and throwing up their hands and saying, sorry, he's the President, whattaya-gonna-do-eyyyy?

The process is the same: Congress either opens an impeachment inquiry or appoints a special council grand jury to investigate and charge the president, and everything works its way through the courts.

The precedent set with Ford pardoning Nixon certainly implies that in previous decades, a former President could be charged with crimes arising from conduct while they were in office.

The pardon, of course, mooted the question, but the answer from the 1970s was (seemingly) "you impeach him, and after he's out of office he can be prosecuted like anyone else".

  1. This case would not have immunized Nixon with respect to actions directly related to watergate (assuming Nixon was involved).

  2. I think impeachment and conviction remove any immunity this decision confers though I admit I haven’t read the case closely yet.

Definitely not on 2

Why do you say definitely not?

Because it's not anywhere in the decision that elements within the first 2 categories they laid out are somehow no longer eligible for immunity after an impeachment.

No it isn’t. But of course the decision doesn’t say the opposite either. I’m making a prediction based on reasonable arguments. This case isn’t a statute. It is much like a common law decision. So like a common law decision im saying change the facts and then think through “how should this change things based on what they said / their concerns.”

I believe impeachment and conviction obviates the concerns they have that led to granting immunity due to the super majority voting requirements for conviction. Thus I fully anticipate that the court would accept my position.

The court goes to some lengths to say that impeachment and conviction are a separate process with no bearing on criminal prosecution. I think it would have been a possible reasonable thing to say that impeachment and conviction remove immunity for the acts involved, but Roberts says "no".

It did so to say that the impeachment provision did not create the sole forum for prosecuting a president. That is, the impeachment provision precludes a stronger form of the immunity. Roberts therefore could be perfectly consistent to say impeachment and conviction further removes immunity without undermining the logic of his opinion.

Given that this whole thing is judicially crafted (taking into account the structure of the constitution) I think you’d have some votes to say impeachment removes (ie you’d have presumably at least three and likely more).

Importantly, Nixon was never charged with anything, so we don't know exactly what the pardon was intended to subvert -- but the underlying crime of the Watergate break-in was related to Nixon's reelection campaign, and reelection campaigns are not official duties of the president but are separated by statutes (isn't that correct?) that draw a clear-ish line between presidential duties and campaign activities. So isn't it likely that if Nixon had been charged, it would've been related to his political campaign -- using presidential powers in the service of his campaign? -- which would be categorically outside of his enumerated presidential duties.

I'm not sure this works. The opinion doesn't make a distinction based on duties, it makes a distinction based on the function. That is to say "using presidential powers" is squarely inside what is protected.

Somewhat counterintuitive in a way -- if a President breaks the law in his capacity a regular citizen, he is not immune. But he is immune if he not only breaks the law but does so via the exercise of any of his core presidential powers.

Nixon's actions were not really those of a candidate for office. By all accounts he did not know about and was not involved in the actual break in. Any actions he would have been charged for were squarely within the court's grant of immunity today. Most likely obstruction of justice for attempting to interfere in the DoJ's investigation of the break-in, including by firing several high level officials.

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