site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   38814 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 15, 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.

The short answer is that it would be almost immediately overturned on emergency appeal. What is more likely is that they sentence him to prison but delay the sentence pending appeal, preventing an emergency appeal and ensuring that he is a “convicted felon” through the election.

I didn't think they would be stupid enough to try and make him an obviously innocent "convicted felon", yet here we are. The black vote is going to explode with the court shenanigans and the shooting.

He is for sure not innocent. You can certainly argue that it was a politically motivated prosecution of the 10 felonies a day type but Trump really did commit a crime.

AFAIK they didn't even show evidence that Trump was the person who categorized the expense.

Let alone the necessity that the mis-categorization had to be "in furtherance of another crime," and that crime remained unspecified, untried, and jurors instructed that they could meet this requirement with anything.

What crime? That he put "Legal Expenses" when he should have put "Settlement Payment" in his own ledger? That's a "crime" on the level of putting the wrong category in Quicken.

He’s correct it is a crime.

But every white color worker who has to document their work probably commits it every other day.

Putting the wrong category in quicken is a crime. Telling your co-worker she’s beautiful when she’s bummed a date went bad is a crime.

Telling your co-worker she’s beautiful when she’s bummed a date went bad is a crime.

Technically it isn't. Allowing one co-worker to tell another that she's beautiful when she's bummed a date went bad is a tort on the part of the employer, but sexual harrassment laws are not criminal laws, and are not directly enforceable against non-manager employees.

Normally I wouldn't get this technical, but given that a large part of the "the NY prosecution is a stretch" is based on the distinction between different kinds of illegality, I think we should.

I think it turns into a crime if you make it a business record. If you say it on Skype where it is recorded then it’s part of the business record. If it’s a lie then it’s falsified. I don’t think in the statute it says it needs to be relevant to operations. But it would be a falsified record about the business. You described an employee who is ugly as beautiful which is false.

There is a requirement that it wasn’t intended to defraud. So false is not enough.

I think you can stretch fraud statutes enough to cover that.

More comments

And you have to have “intent to defraud.” I’m not sure legal expense is false but Im very sure there was no intent to defraud.

Why do you say he’s “obviously innocent” when the jury unanimously found him guilty after being explained all the evidence? It sounds like you think “they” can simply control what the jury believes.

  • -10

It sounds like you think “they” can simply control what the jury believes.

The thing is, Trump's so polarising that you'd expect most people to vote on the jury based on their opinion of Trump, rather than the facts of the case. And, well, Manhattan voted 90% Democrat in 2020, and ten peremptory strikes for each side easily suffice for an all-Democrat jury (even strikes for each side advantage whoever has a majority, because striking a minority juror will usually succeed at replacing the juror with one of the majority while striking a majority juror will usually just replace the juror with another one of the majority - this is the same way the South could ensure all-white juries until Batson declared race-based peremptory strikes to be unconstitutional).

Manhattan turnout was 65%. That means your jury pool is not 90% (actually 85%) Democrat-voting, it's 55%.

  • -11

(actually 85%)

Sorry, the map I read had like five different shades of blue for different margins and Manhattan's pretty small.

The people who don't vote for President are unlikely to show up for jury duty also. And they're still Democrats.

  1. The jury pool hates Trump.

  2. No they didn’t get to hear “all the evidence.” The judge made many poor rulings allowing things in that should not have been permitted and prohibiting evidence that should’ve been allowed.

  3. The judge’s instructions were faulty as a matter of law. That is, he gave the wrong law to the jury. Even a truly impartial jury (of which this was not) would probably convict based upon the faulty leading jury instructions.

  4. The law Trump allegedly broke was impermissibly brought by the DA (ie even if all of the elements were proven NY under its own constitution and under federal preemption could not bring the case).

Huh, is there somewhere I could read about 2 - 4 explained in greater detail? I’m afraid I’m not well versed in legal proceedings.

I believe the former federal elections commissioner wanted to testify saying it was not a crime. I don’t know rules of evidence that well but that sounds like a guy very qualified to explain the evidence.

The relevant rule of evidence here is that the judge is responsible for determining what the law is and instructing the jury accordingly. The parties can bring witnesses to testify about the facts of the case but they can't bring witnesses to make arguments to the jury about what the law is.

If the judge gets the law wrong, that's an appealable error.

The prosecution actually asserted it was a fact that there was a campaign finance violation. In addition, the judge permitted Michael fucking Cohen to testify about his understanding of FECA. So yes you are correct abstractly but wrong as it was applied in this case.

Once the judge allowed Cohen to say what he said the only effective curative would’ve been to allow Smith to testify or declare a mistrial.

The parties can bring witnesses to testify about the facts of the case but they can't bring witnesses to make arguments to the jury about what the law is.

This is a distinction without a difference when the facts of the case hinge on what the law is in actual application, which thus shapes the facts of what intent should be on the part of the accused, which the witness forbidden to testify was the best able to speak to.

Googling this to refresh my memory. Turns out the judge didn’t bar the former FEC guy from testifying. The judged barred him from giving expert opinion on the law.

I guess for rules of evidence it’s probably legally correct. There is a bigger problem here because when cases get more complex judges become less of the expert on the law.

The felony case is a lot like the judge telling the jury that eating a ham sandwich is murder. And then they showed a picture of Trump eating a ham sandwich.

But again the problem is he allowed Cohen to testify as to what Cohen understood the law to be. So basically the judge spoke out of both sides of his mouth.

And then banning the chief enforcer of Don't Eat Ham Sandwiches from attesting that what was being presented as a ham sandwich was actually a ham taco, and would not be considered a ham sandwich by the Ministry of Don't Eat Ham Sandwiches.

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