site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33487 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 19, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Interested in hearing what our resident lawyers have to say about the likelihood of conviction on these charges. How hard would it be to actually prove he was high in the two weeks he had the gun?

I am not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice, but the law isn't about owning a firearm as a drug user, but lying on this form, which asks:

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

The ATF's older published rule is that :

Moreover, under the proposed definition, a person must be a current user of a controlled substance to be prohibited by the GCA from acquiring or possessing firearms. Although there is no statutory definition of current use, applicable case law indicates that a person need not have been using drugs at the precise moment that he or she acquired or possessed a firearm to be under firearms disabilities with respect to acquiring or possessing a firearm as an unlawful user of a controlled substance...

The proposed definition is also consistent with the definition of ‘‘current drug user’’ applied by the Department of Labor in its administration of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213. Regulations issued pursuant to the ADA indicate that the term ‘‘current user’’ is not intended to be limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct.

Similarly, the definition of ‘‘addicted to any controlled substance’’ is based on Federal law, 21 U.S.C. § 802, and defines an ‘‘addict’’ as an individual who uses any narcotic drug and who has lost the power of self- control with respect to the use of the narcotic drug.

More recent guidance is even more explicit:

If there is evidence that an individual admits, within the past 12 months, to using or possessing a controlled substance, the federal drug prohibition 922(g)(3) would apply. Admission of use/possession of a controlled substance may often be found within the narrative of a criminal incident report. An admission of drug use/possession does not have to result in a drug arrest to be disqualifying.

Individuals admitting to illegal use/possession of a controlled substance are prohibited from the receipt/possession of a firearm for one year from the date of admission. It should be noted this must be a self-admission. If a second party states the controlled substance belongs to another subject, either would be disqualified based solely on that statement.

Hunter bought the gun Oct. 12, 2018, and Hallie threw it in the trash Oct. 23, 2018. Hunter's book details on-and-off cocaine use from at least his dismissal from the Navy Reserve until early 2019, but particularly emphasizes 2018 as "I was smoking crack every 15 minutes" after falling off the wagon in spring of that year.

It's not quite a signed confession, but there's few easier cases to prove than when someone literally writes a book about it followed by an interview tour.

Sorry, I realized that it was about lying on the form rather than use. My thought was that he had a plausible defense of being on the wagon during, say, that month. Thank you for pointing me to the one-year limit.

It does in fact sound like this should have been open-and-shut.

which is what he is getting anyway.

As a small nitpick, the firearm charge is being put through a pretrial diversion program.

The probation is for the tax charges.

I am not licensed to practice law, but my discussions with a few lawyers seem to suggest that pretrial diversion for a federal firearms charge is fairly rare, compared to probation or other penalties.

He's getting probation for other, unrelated crimes that he unquestionably committed. The guidelines for multiple counts in the same sentencing are a mess, but I think it'd end up adding two or four offense levels, depending on how you do the math.

Just these three matters alone get him to Zone B, where the sentencing guidelines hold that "the court may impose probation only if it imposes a condition or combination of conditions requiring a period of community confinement, home detention, or intermittent confinement sufficient to satisfy the minimum term of imprisonment specified in the guideline range."

And then there's the other gun we have photographic evidence that he possessed illegally, that possessing the firearm and lying on the form are different violations of law, the piles of cocaine, the potential FARA violations, so on.

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