site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   25748 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 25, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

By the time they guy is arrested and booked our officer and store clerk are probably on hour 10 of their shift. You want them to hang out for another 2 for some sort of preliminary hearing, then another 3 for a jury trial (where are these jurors coming from, and who is doing voir dire by the way?).

No, they just submit their testimonies and leave. The recorded versions are used during the quicktrial.

The jury comes from the same place all other jurors come from, voter rolls? As for voir dire, do you mean juror selection? Whichever assistant attorney and public defender are the first to arrive in the morning can do this.

Do you want speedy trials or not? Because the alternative is Cousin Wang and his merry gang disincentivizing theft on their turf by breaking bones.

I would think no defense counsel would agree to basically any of your plan.

Why should anyone ask them? I'm talking about a judicial reform, is it a federal legislative matter or a state legislative matter?

Its a constitutional law matter

I knew the US constitution was dummy thick, but does it really contain every minute detail about trials by jury?

The Constitution itself is quite brief. The hundreds of cases of binding precedent about it, not so much.

One simple example is that the right to a speedy trial is held by the defendant, not the state.

Another is that the defendant is entitled to all relevant information the state has (this is called Brady generally) and adequate time to review it. In most cases, adequate time is determined by defense counsel (rare exceptions are made such as in the Trump NY case, and when defense appears to be delaying intentionally).

In the state I reside, the process you describe wherein everything is taking 1 or 2 days is a condensed version of what currently takes somewhere between 2 and 30 days. No defense lawyer would ever agree to this mini-jury approving an actual guilty, so you are actually complicating the processes known as information (mini pre-trial before a judge) and indictment (mini pre-trial before a grand jury).

Defense is always going to want the full discovery and ability for a full trial. They want to strike jurors who have been robbed in a robbery case (another constitutional case ruling), racists who hate all , etc.

Most defendants are guilty. The Constitution has a presumption of innocence. The interplay of these two is deeply ingrained in the system and would require more than laws to change.

Thanks for the explanation. Do cases have to percolate up to the SCOTUS for them to overturn the previous ruling, or does any of of the federal branches have the power to launch the review of existing cases?

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