site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31726 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 24, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

According to the notes referred to and linked to n the article, the relevant parts were apparently indeed shown to the jury:

-video is body cam seventeen minutes long, unedited go pro. Portion shown to jury is only about four minutes long -Plaintiff has seen the PF promo video, ten minutes version. -Judge rules it to be entered as an exhibit but denied letting the jury view it during trial

so, just an edited portion is shown to the jury. Doesn't pass the smell test for me, but it doesn't surprise me anymore.

Right. Because that is how it works: Relevant parts are admitted, and not the irrelevant parts. Also excluded: Portions that are relevant but highly prejudicial. Given who these guys are, it is very, very likely that portions were excluded at the behest of the defense, because they included the defendants using epithets and the like.

Tell me, have the defendants or their attorneys complained that they were not permitted to introduce exculpatory evidence?

Given who these guys are, it is very, very likely that portions were excluded at the behest of the defense, because they included the defendants using epithets and the like.

Objection!, your honor the plaintiff is assuming things not in evidence.

Tell me, have the defendants or their attorneys complained that they were not permitted to introduce exculpatory evidence?

Publicly not that I have seen, privately between the parties involved is another matter.

Objection!, your honor the plaintiff is assuming things not in evidence.

It's a video of a bunch of neo-Nazi types talking amongst themselves while on the way to protest a Pride event. I am going to stand by my belief that there is very likely (not definitely; very likely) at least some stuff on there that the defense does not want the jury to hear.

Publicly not that I have seen, privately between the parties involved is another matter

It sounds like now you are the one assuming facts not in evidence.

It sounds like now you are the one assuming facts not in evidence.

Well yes, if you can do it so can I too. My rules enforced > your rules enforced fairly > your rules enforced unfairly.

Come on, dude, I actually have some evidence to support my inference. Moreover, I am saying that it is likely, not that it definitely happened. You, on the other hand, are just guessing.

And are you honestly telling me that you don't think it is likely that, at some point on the tape, at least one of these guys said something that a defense attorney would not want a jury to hear, because it makes them look bad? There is a reason that Idaho, like every other state, has an evidence code provision whereby evidence that is unduly prejudicial can be excluded. These guys are neo-Nazis, after all. They presumably often say neo-Nazi stuff that will make them look bad in front of a jury. Just as gang members do when they talk among themselves say things that they would prejudice them in front of a jury. And mafia members. Etc, etc. I have personally written motions to redact such recordings.

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