site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   33934 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 9, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why are District Attorneys so reluctant to charge multiple opposing parties in a single incident? In this case why isn't the pro Palestinian charged with assault or Violation of a Constitutional Right Causing Injury?

It reminds me of another example; the Apple River stabbing, where the teenagers weren't charged with assault which happened prior to the man pulling his knife to stab people. Same problem.

Are DA's reluctant to muddy the waters with conflicting cases like this? Is this a political motivation where they are 'chasing wins'?

Edit: Turns out the DA did charge the other party a day later as per a news article linked in Ben Garrison's post here.

I was once a juror on a murder trial where the guy filmed himself murdering the gal and throwing her in a trash can and they called in a city worker to testify for like 3 or 4 hours about his entire career in waste management and how trash trucks and cans work and the entire city's trash collection schedule, etc because apparently the DA didn't think that watching the video of this guy murdering the gal and throwing her into a trash can would be enough to convince us he did it

So presumably the answer to your question is because the DA considers it essential to have every possible witness testify in excruciating detail and charging a 'necessary' witness with a crime might throw a wrench in that desire

Massachusetts hates guns, and wants people with guns to leave the state. The DA charged the person who used a gun. The point is that they believe only the person who used the gun committed a serious enough crime to charge.

After all, the other guy was just involved in a fiery but mostly peaceful protest.

Are DA's reluctant to muddy the waters with conflicting cases like this?

I think it's this: if they charged the pro-Palestinian guy, the pro-Israeli guy's defense would definitely bring it up. And the pro-Israeli guy's crime was greater -- the pro-Palestinian guy committed battery, the pro-Israeli guy usurped the power of the state by defending himself.

In this case why isn't the pro Palestinian charged with assault or Violation of a Constitutional Right Causing Injury?

Well, was Scott Hayes actually injured? The pro Palestinian got shot, a much more severe punishment than if he were to be convicted of simple battery.

Let’s change the facts. Let’s say like Han Solo pro Palestinian guy shot first but unlike Solo he missed. Mr Hayes wouldn’t have been injured and Bad Solo would’ve been when Hayes returned fire. That fact though wouldnt queer Hayes self defense.

Actual injury shouldn't be necessary. You can't tell the police that you didn't need your kids to wear seatbelts on the freeway because they haven't been injured. Tackling someone on a sidewalk could have lead to them cracking their head open.

I do understand the 'fuck around and find out' assumption that justice has been done, but is this actually a consideration from DA's when considering which cases to take?

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