site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   23813 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 2025

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It seems that you are leaving off the very first paragraph of Section 1505, which precedes the one you posted. It reads:

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

It would seem to me that if they can establish the alleged facts, it clearly fits under "removes from any place, conceals, covers up". It does not contain the required element of corruption which you wrote about, just "intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance".

I just abbreviated them:

Blablabla Antitrust Civil Process Act blablabla or [....]

Let me try to parse this.

  • [subject] Whoever,

    • [intent] with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act,

  • [act] willfully

    • withholds,

    • misrepresents,

    • removes from any place,

    • conceals,

    • covers up,

    • destroys,

    • mutilates,

    • alters,

    • or by other means falsifies

  • [object of act]

    • any documentary material,

    • answers to written interrogatories,

    • or oral testimony,

  • [required attribute of object] which is the subject of such demand [e.g. of the ACPA];

  • [alternative act] or attempts to do so

  • [alternative act] or solicits another to do so

So, for that paragraph to apply, we require

a) a civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act

b) someone acting with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance to that demand

c) that someone doing bad things to materials, interrogatories or testimony related to that demand (or incites others or attempts that).

To my knowledge, there was no ACPA demand, the judge did not act to obstruct compliance with such a demand, and a person is not a valid object to act on to fulfill the act being criminalized by that paragraph.

It looks to me that this is meant to criminalize "oh shit, we are under anti-trust investigation. Let us quickly shred all the documents, or cook our books". In one dimension it is extremely broad (anyone can commit it), but it requires intent (which is often hard to prove) and pertains only to something very specific (demands under the ACPA).

I have no clue why the hell Congress would put that specific case of destruction of evidence (of which there are certainly more, my guess is that you will also go to jail for shredding evidence you are required to surrender in labor, racketeering, or environmental investigations -- just not under that statue) with obstruction of justice.

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