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 -
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
The judge's rulings on a point of law are binding unless appealed. That you can't put up a legal expert to explain to the jury why the judge is wrong on the law is Courtroom Procedure 101. In a better legal system, this point probably should have been resolved on an interlocutory appeal before trial, but in the US system as it exists that wouldn't have helped because the appeal would have gone to a NY State appeals court, and what is actually needed is a Federal ruling on a difficult technical point of Federal law.
The US system (going right back to the Constitution making federal trial courts optional and the Federalist Papers explaining that federal law could be enforced in State courts) assumes that state courts can be trusted to get federal law right. The ways a federal court can overrule a State court on a point of federal law are deliberately restricted.
Ordinarily yes but obviously this is a loophole in the 7th Amendment if violation of that law is an element of the crime, and the judge can simply rule that law to be constructively violated.
Consider two laws: a law against disorderly conduct, and a law against wearing a mask while committing a crime. And the prosecutor brings a case against you for the charge of wearing a mask while committing a crime, accusing you of committing disorderly conduct while masked up. You definitely were masked up, but deny that you were disorderly. Should the judge be allowed to simply rule that you were committing the crime of disorderly conduct for the purpose of this prosecution, without ever proving the elements of the crime, and despite you never being charged with disorderly conduct?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link