site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   31616 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022

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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Maybe he's hoping that people will look at this and go 'boy wouldn't it be great if instead of this banana republic bullshit where you can get arrested for doing what a government official told you to do we had a system in place that determines all this shit before the election and sends me something I can use to say "yes this is me and yes I can vote" like we do with plane tickets and driving and buying cough medicine?'

Yeah I agree, that would've been great! You do realize that the text of Amendment 4 simply said "This amendment would restore voting rights automatically upon completion of all terms of a sentence, including parole or probation", right? It was the Republican legislature that worked very hard to enshrine into law that "all terms of a sentence" actually also includes any potentially unpaid fines. They did this despite (or more accurately and less charitably because) everyone involved was loudly raising the alarm that there was no viable system in place for the state to keep track of unpaid fines.

Here's just one excerpt of the mess from the lawsuit that followed:

An example is a flat $225 assessment in every felony case, $200 of which is used to fund the clerk’s office and $25 of which is remitted to the Florida Department of Revenue for deposit in the state’s general revenue fund. Another example is a flat $3 assessment in every case that is remitted to the Department of Revenue for further distribution in specified percentages for, among other things, a domestic-violence program and a law-enforcement training fund.

And here's one guy's efforts to pay all his fines:

Mr. Wrench was convicted of felonies under two case numbers on December 15, 2008. The State introduced copies of the judgments, but it is unclear whether the copies are complete. The criminal judgments, or at least the portion in the record, do not show any financial obligations. But on February 2, 2009, a civil judgment was entered under the first case number for $1,874 in “financial obligations”—no further description was provided—that, according to the civil judgment, had been ordered as part of the sentence. Similarly, on March 15, 2011, more than two years later, a civil judgment was entered under the second case number for $601 in unspecified “financial obligations” that, again according to the civil judgment, had been ordered as part of the sentence. It is unclear what amount, if any, the State asserts Mr. Wrench must pay on these convictions to be eligible to vote.

None of this had to be this way. Voting restoration that only needed to look at when a prison or probation sentence ended would've been infinitely easier to implement that the system Florida chose instead, where the existence of an unnoticed $3 unpaid fine in some court clerk's drawer decides whether someone's vote is legal or a felony offense.

Yeah sorry I was typical minding, what I'm saying is that maybe the plan is to make it all seem crazy convoluted and impossible to follow so people throw up their hands and say 'just give us voting id already' in exasperation. I get the impression the republicans see voter id as the way to convince their base they've solved election fraud.

I'm so confused as to how voter id would help. This was not a scenario of mistaken identity here but rather the government choosing to implement a system everyone knew was going to be a record-keeping mess.

It would not help this problem but voters often move just on a pathos of "oh yeah we should clean things up."

How would voter ID help? Couldn't there be a case where someone has a voter ID but their vote was still cast illegally because of <insert reason>? If government erroneously lets people vote verbally (like in real life), wouldn't they also erroneously let people vote with an ID?

The only possible reason I can think of is with voter ID, if a voter could prove they had the ID. Would a voter really be able to prove they had an ID? Why can't voters (in real life) prove they were told they could vote?

Voter ID to me, solves the problem of voters deceiving government. This case is about government deceiving voters.

Lol, still typical minding sorry. I am trying to explain why I think the republicans are doing this. Keep in mind that I am pretty sure both major parties cheat their asses off in every election they can and have done for decades. So why would desantis, who seems competent enough to avoid making a whoopsie daisy like this by accident, be doing it deliberately? What is the purpose of it?

My theory is that he's accelerating. Knowing people don't care about details, only headlines, he does everything he can to introduce confusion to the voting process - the specifics of what he does not mattering as much as increasing the number of stories about electoral fuck ups out there - so that after the twentieth story of 'election mishaps' the headline-reading moderate, who is now utterly sick of hearing about election shit, will agree to let the government do something about the election to 'fix it'.

Then the republicans institute voter ids and declare the problem solved and elections safe forever.

Edit: @ymeskhout also.

It was the Republican legislature that worked very hard to enshrine into law that "all terms of a sentence" actually also includes any potentially unpaid fines.

I guess I would have assumed that "all terms of a sentence" is implicitly inclusive of unpaid fines from that sentence. I'm not clear why fines would be excluded from either textualist or spirit of the law readings. I appreciate the practical problems that you're covering, and that certainly speaks poorly of the process, but it would seem quite weird to me if "all terms of the sentence" actually meant "the terms of incarceration, but not fines and fees".

I think everyone would agree that "sentence" would include time spent behind bars. If you were to widen the scope of the definition, the concept you'd encounter next would be probation, where you're still under supervision even though you no longer in a prison. If you were to widen the scope even more, you could reach the concept of fines if the definition is expansive enough. But generally the progression here logically goes from most central to the concept, down to most collateral.

So when the amendment says "all terms of a sentence, including parole or probation" it's there to disavow any potential confusion of the scope anyone might have vis-a-vis "prison" and "parole or probation". The fact that they specify parole or probation further anchors the demarcation line. To argue that fines are implicitly included in this expansion, you'd have to establish that fines are logically just as central to the concept of a sentence as parole/probation are within the context of a criminal prosecution. A common analysis technique in statutory interpretation used by courts is where the trailing examples are used as guiding illustrations to set the scope. For example if I ran a restaurant and had a generic contract with a supplier for "dairy, like milk and cheese" and they deliver tubs of whey protein powder, a judge is very likely to rule that violated the contract, even if it was technically correct.

The amendment text could have said "all terms of a sentence, including parole, probation, or fines" in which case there would not have been any ambiguity. It didn't, and the best most charitable interpretation its omission can sustain is that reasonable minds can disagree. But if this was really an edge case of interpretation, it doesn't explain the insistence to choose an implementation everyone knew was going to come with severe practical problems, which is why they're relevant.

Parole and probation are, well, probationary measures; they're a supervised relaxing of a punishment conditional on good behavior, rather than a punishment themselves. If you're out on parole it means you should be in prison but we're trusting you. They don't intuitively map to me as part of the sentence.

A fine, however, is. You get sentenced to a five thousand dollar fine and five year in prison, and during that sentence you might be let out on parole.

A fine is much more centrally a part of a sentence than probation is.

I think there's some merit to what you're saying... but would you agree that there's a difference between the fines given in sentencing and the fines that are tacked on for processing?

I'd probably be fine with saying these people needed to pay the fines referenced by the judge. But if someone is sentenced to jailtime, and then a bunch of fines are tacked on as part of the processing for the court and the jail... those don't seem like they shkuld be part of the sentence.

If those “tacked on” fines aren’t part of the sentence, by what authority are they being imposed? If you are legally obligated to pay a sum of money as a result of a criminal conviction, it seems to me you have been “sentenced” to pay that sum of money.

So your answer is "no". Got it.

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