site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34976 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 6, 2023

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.

then the same strictures should apply to the other examples that have been discussed in this thread.

The point is that they are: The strictures applied are the same ones that have been applied in thousands of prosecutions every year for many, many years. Those strictures might well be unjust, but the claim that this guy was subjected to special treatment is a claim devoid of evidence.

"the peaceful transfer of power" is a notion from political science, and AFAIK that notion and its analogues are found nowhere in American law

LOL, right. Because nothing in the Constitution nor federal law are meant to ensure that.

The strictures applied are the same ones that have been applied in thousands of prosecutions every year for many, many years.

But we're not just talking about the prosecution itself, we're talking about the decision to prosecute at all and how he was charged.

LOL, right. Because nothing in the Constitution nor federal law are meant to ensure that.

OK, so what was Chansley attempting to do as part of his "disruption of official proceedings" that's defined in American law and was relevant to getting him a harsher sentence? Should be easy for you to find, given your response. If that thing was itself a crime, why wasn't he charged with attempting it too? If it wasn't, then why was it relevant to his sentence?

But we're not just talking about the prosecution itself, we're talking about the decision to prosecute at all and how he was charged.

The guy attempted to disrupt the counting of electoral votes by Congress. 18 U.S.C. § 1512{c)(2) says:

(c)Whoever corruptly—

(2)otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 1515(a) says:

(1)the term “official proceeding” means—

(A)a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, or a Federal grand jury;

(B)a proceeding before the Congress;

(C)a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law; or

(D)a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce;

So, you are complaining because the guy was charged with a clear violation of the law?

OK, so what was Chansley attempting to do as part of his "disruption of official proceedings" that's defined in American law and was relevant to getting him a harsher sentence?

As I said, in the quote from the Supreme Court, a defendant's motive is relevant to his sentencing. Your repeated reference to "defined in law" leads me to believe that you are confusing different issues. Anything, such as a sentencing enhancement, that can increase a defendant's sentence beyond the statutory maximum for the underlying crime, and "[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, . . . must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 490 (2000). Because they must be submitted to jury, of course they must be specifically defined. But when a statute provides for a range of sentences, the sentencing court can consider any relevant factor, including, as noted, motive, as well as the effect of the crime, as well as many other things.

And, again, this seems to be an odd argument, since in his plea agreement he agreed that his guideline range was 41-51 months, and he ended up being sentenced to 41 months. So, what, exactly, are you complaining about?

So, you are complaining because the guy was charged with a clear violation of the law?

No, I am complaining because lots of people who did comparable things weren't. I already said that. Multiple people in this thread have repeatedly explained this exact point to you, so I don't really see why you're not getting it.

As I said, in the quote from the Supreme Court, a defendant's motive is relevant to his sentencing.

Yeah, I get that. But the question isn't whether his motive is relevant. The question is what the relevant motive is supposed to be and the legal grounds for that specific motive to be relevant. Obviously not every motive is relevant, so then we have the question of which ones legally ought to be considered relevant. You have answered the first question, but not the second.

So, what, exactly, are you complaining about?

I have already explained that.

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