site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   29942 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.

1 - 3 seem relatively reasonable (though 2 is more deferential than I think is necessary). However, 4 is the big "What the hell?!" to me. It strikes me as a poison pill meant to make the whole thing nearly impossible to prove.

Say you think a President took a bribe for an ambassador. They could theoretically be prosecuted for that. However, any communication he might have had is pretty much immune from evidence-gathering. The Supreme Court also said you cannot put him on the stand and ask him under oath if he hired the guy because of the bribe.

I'm legitimately curious at how this is supposed to work, outside of said President being so stupid as to broadcast his crime on prime-time TV.

Hence Barrett's opinion.

Does it even matter if he broadcasts his crime on prime-time TV? He could be there in his official capacity and thus the broadcast can’t be used as evidence for any wrongdoing.

I don't think an act becomes qualified as an "official presidential act" merely by the president appearing on TV, saying "I'm the president!," and committing a crime. There would have to be an argument that the crime was somehow necessary to the duties of his role.

Let's say one of a President's official duties is signing bills. While signing bills, his pen runs out of ink. The President then grabs his nearest aide, chops off the aide's hand, and signs the bill with the aide's bloody wrist stump.

The crime may have been committed during the execution of an official duty, but the crime is not necessary to the execution of the duty. Even assuming that another working pen could be not found without a run to Office Depot, the crime would still be egregious compared to the inconvenience of waiting for a new pen. This seems like an easily prosecutable crime because the infringed right of the aide outweighs the convenience of finding a writing utensil.

The same goes for the Seal Team Six scenario: Executing one's political opponents is not a necessary function of the president performing a duty. Whatever duty was being pursued surely has less-illegal remedies at the president's disposal.

Okay, but let's say there is a weak argument that the crime was necessary to his duties. How do you disprove it? You would want evidence, but the bad argument also makes it an official act until proven otherwise, meaning you can't effectively investigate it.

But is there a carve out for things "not necessary to the execution of his duty?" I don't believe there is, since that seems to directly go against this recent court decision. The judiciary wouldn't get to decide whether a specific implementation is "unnecessary" or "too-illegal." The president gets a presumption of immunity for all of his official duties, however he chooses to discharge them. The alternative just makes the decision moot because any prosecutor can just claim that a specific action is a "too-illegal" remedy to get an indictment.

So, yes, under this decision, I believe that, since the president can direct our troops, he can order Seal Team Six to execute his political opponents. The ordering part is the official act, and is immune to prosecution.

Except what the lawful orders can be issued is not preclusive to the President, but the rules for the government and regulations for the armed forces established by Congress per Article 1, and thus not immune to prosecution by the standard of the court.

The President has no authority for issuing unlawful orders, and thus the immunity argument can only apply if ordering Seal Team Six to execute his political opponents is a lawful order in the framework already passed by Congress.

Upon further research, you're likely right. This fact was not apparent to me reading through the reporting and discussions of this court opinion on other social media.

The President's authority over Seal Team Six is that of the Commander-in-Chief. He can give them orders. It's pretty well-established that there are legal orders and illegal orders and which is which is decided by Congress.

(2) Not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress.

In these areas, the Court says, he has a presumption of immunity, not absolute immunity. If the President gives Seal Team Six a blatantly illegal order like that one, and the prosecutors did a halfway-decent job, the courts would likely find the presumption was rebutted.

The broadcast isn't the act though--it displays the act. If the act itself were to broadcast something, then maybe, but I'd still say that the act in that case would be the action of broadcasting, not the contents of the broadcast.

If he's being broadcast for a presidential speech and turns around and murders someone, then his act is the presidential speech, not the broadcast. People can still use the broadcast as evidence.

Ah you’re right. I was thinking along the lines of him admitting he’s done a crime on the broadcast, not that he literally commit the crime on the broadcast.

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