site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   15019 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 16, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Since we just had a discussion on whether #MeToo has run out of steam last week: Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs jailed by judge after sex trafficking indictment

Combs was arrested Monday in Manhattan, roughly six months after federal authorities raided his luxurious homes in Los Angeles and Miami.

A conviction on every charge would require at least 15 years in prison, with the possibility of a life sentence.

The indictment describes Combs as the head of a criminal enterprise that engaged or attempted to engage in sex trafficking, forced labor, interstate transportation for purposes of prostitution, drug offenses, kidnapping, arson, bribery and obstruction of justice.

Combs and his associates wielded his “power and prestige” to intimidate and lure women into his orbit, “often under the pretense of a romantic relationship,” according to the indictment.

It alleges that Combs used explicit recordings as “collateral” to ensure the women’s continued obedience and silence. He also exerted control over victims by promising career opportunities, providing and threatening to withhold financial support, dictating how they looked, monitoring their health records and controlling where they lived, according to the indictment.

This sounds very similar to the tactics used by Keith Raniere, which bodes ill for Diddy.

He's always been a Weinstein figure in hip hop (both in the sexual deviant sense and because he fit the stereotype of record/studio owner screwing artists over better than any Jewish exec in hip hop at this poinnt). Most of the stories centered around his homosexuality in perhaps the most openly homophobic genre. But, as with Weinstein, this goes way past the lurid stories passed around for years.

Funnily enough, I was just watching a video of one of the victims of Raniere [talk about the FBI's recalcitrance to take on the case up until it became public, at which point "speed of government" ceased to be a joke.

In this case, I wonder if Cassie's very public lawsuit against Diddy, facilitated by the Adult Survivor's Act and its extension of the statute of limitations (the same thing that got Trump in trouble with E. Jean Carroll) is what opened him up to a more vigorous investigation?

So, a MeToo win or not?

FWIW, I think that this definitely qualifies as MeToo. Powerful man, coercion, promise of advancement, all there. Much more severe than most such cases, imo.

Of course, the ASA (besides being a lex Trump) reads like a prime example of an ex post facto law, which Article one, sections 9 and 10 of the US constitution would prohibit.

But of course I am reading that all wrong. You see, the framers intent of these sections was clearly to only prohibit ex post facto laws concerning criminal cases resulting in criminal punishment, which is defined as narrowly as humanly thinkable. Having to register as a sex offender, being banned from owning firearms or even being locked up indefinitely are clearly not punishments, and having to pay money to some other party never is.

This goes hand in hand with the triple jeopardy for the same act practiced by the US. First we try you in state court. If you get acquitted in state court, we can still try you in federal court. If you also get acquitted there, we will still allow civil cases which might bankrupt you but will at least not send you to prison (unless you do not comply with the definitely-not-a-punishment regulatory prohibition to own firearms, for example).

In Germany, from my understanding, most criminal allegations go to court once only (not counting either side contesting the verdict). Generally, if you want to get damages from the defendant, you would become a joint plaintiff (Nebenklaeger). A civil court will generally be very reluctant to make a finding of fact that one party committed a criminal act in contradiction to the finding of fact of an earlier criminal trial. I also think the statue of limitations for claiming damages is the same as for the criminal act on which they are based, 'we convicted the arsonist but you can't have him pay for your house because the civil statue of limitations expired' would be silly.

--

However, here, the charges made against Combs are clearly criminal charges. I don't know how the law is in NY, so it could be that without the ASA, none of the women who alleged sex crimes would have seen a single penny from Combs, so their motivation would have been limited to sending a sex offender to jail, which is of course not as good a motivation for the painful act of going on the stand and detailing degrading sex acts as the prospect of earning a few millions in damages is.

So is Diddy gay, bi or straight according to this latest evidence?

Yes.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

He seems like an equal opportunity degenerate frankly, raping women and having them used by male sex workers/his friends.

I skimmed the indictment and it doesn't seem to mark him as having a singular preference. It's naturally focused around the trafficking and prostitutions

My suspicion is that it isn't related to MeToo at all.

Powerful people in DC are still enraged about Musk's purchase of Twitter. This arrest happened shortly after it was revealed that Diddy invested in the Twitter purchase.

So I think that Merrick Garland saw Diddy's name in the Twitter investors and told the FBI to dust off their Diddy file and throw the book at him.

This would mean that either, they decided not to act on the info they had before because: (1) They found the allegations not credible and were doubtful that they could make anything stick (2) They found them credible, but were uninterested in enforcing sex crime laws against a high profile target

Now, (2) would be in contradiction to how I would expect a blue tribe, political DA to act. Securing a criminal conviction in a high profile #MeToo case seems like the best strategy for reelection.

(1) might be credible if we were talking about Trump. The narrative 'since 2021, the blue tribe is panicking about Trump and brings any half-baked allegations to court' has at least some merits to it. But Combs is very much not Trump, and putting a few millions (??) in twitter is not Trump-running-for-president level of evil in the mind of the progressives.

I significantly disagree with your evaluation of (2). High profile targets always get filtered through leadership. Combs is black. He is popular in blue areas. We are not talking about Tim McGraw (spelling?). Statistically speaking he probably is into white girls. Black guy traffics a bunch of white girls in freaky drug filled dens of malevolence is a bad story for Dems 10/10 times. And the FBI and DOJ are captured. This only came out because something happened that made it unable to be buried. Maybe another situation like Rudy getting the laptop in 2020, but on steroids.

Seriously?

You think Merrick Garland’s secret vendetta against Twitter is more likely than the FBI pouncing on an ongoing public spectacle?

The big red flag is that the crimes seem to take place in Miami and LA, but the indictment was filed in SDNY. SDNY is where they like to do their politicized prosecutions. Charges filed there with a dubious connection to NYC implies that this is about him pissing someone off. Twitter is just a guess.

I don’t suppose you can provide more than one example of “their” prosecutions, can you?

As far as conspiracies go, this one is pretty dumb.

The Steve Bannon prosecution over the build the wall foundation happened in SDNY. The recent "Tenet Media indictment" of two Russians took place in SDNY. No connection to NYC in either of those cases. There are a lot more, I don't have a list handy. Ricky Vaughn was going to be prosecuted there, but they filed in Easter District NY instead because they thought the jury would be better.

Maurene Comey, James Comey's daughter, works there.

When Geoffrey Berman ran SDNY he tried to claim that AG Barr couldn't fire him and tried to continue to serve.

It'll take an effortpost to go into depth.

Thanks. Makes me think I don’t know that much about jurisdiction selection.

I really would be interested in an effort post like that!

I’m not convinced it’s related to twitter either, but it is kind of strange it took them this long

The DHS was raiding him back in March. I think this kind of case just takes a while. It’s not like he’s going anywhere.

That isnt really the problem with the theory. It is the decades before that appear both unchanged and suspiciously not looked at.

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