site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29444 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Question for the lawyers here - what's the test for "corruptly" obstructing an official proceeding, as opposed to non-corruptly doing so?

One of the previous J6-related trials used these pretrial statements, which defined the matter as :

To act “corruptly,” the defendant must use independently unlawful means or act with an unlawful purpose, or both. The defendant must also act with “consciousness of wrongdoing.” “Consciousness of wrongdoing” means with an understanding or awareness that what the person is doing is wrong or unlawful.

Not all attempts to obstruct or impede an official proceeding involve acting corruptly. For example, a witness in a court proceeding may refuse to testify by invoking his or her constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, thereby obstructing or impeding the proceeding, but that person does not act corruptly. In addition, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution affords people the right to speak, assemble, and petition the Government for grievances. Accordingly, an individual who does no more than lawfully exercise those rights does not act corruptly. In contrast, an individual who obstructs or impedes a court proceeding by bribing a witness to refuse to testify in that proceeding, or by engaging in other independently unlawful conduct, does act corruptly. Often, acting corruptly involves acting with the intent to secure an unlawful advantage or benefit either for oneself or for another person.

There's a fun philosophical question about how much Trump can be said to "know" anything, but the indictment's got a lot of people telling Trump he lost and didn't have a legal way to stay in office; it's at least enough to go to a jury on this specific question.

This just boils down to he-said-he-said.

Yes, many criminal cases do. Courts are allowed to conclude that someone lied.

Reminder on January 4th Pence gave this statement:

https://nitter.privacydev.net/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1686540469076152320#m

This is a weak argument if you can't defend the original point, and instead have to emphasize the glib line "Courts can conclude someone lied".

It isn't a glib line. It is a description of what juries do every day: Resolve he-said-she-said controversies. Hence, arguing "This just boils down to he-said-he-said" is meaningless.

I'm not sure what you think that statement proves.

Okay, Pence said he had concerns about the validity of the election. Cool. But that in no way implies that he had the unilateral authority to reject the validity of state electors.

Pence says he told Trump he did not have the power. Trump said Pence did have the power. Pence acted in accordance with both his public statements about his own authority and his claimed private statements to Trump about his own authority. So if Trump is telling the truth, then Pence really committed to the bit, voluntarily and unnecessarily removing himself from office. And as you point out, he would have done so in the context of an election whose results he publicly questioned.

He-said-he-said: Trump must be lying, because Pence's testimony suggests he was. Meanwhile, two days before, Pence was publicly aligning himself with Trump's position.

It's untenable to suppose that Trump "knew" he was lying when he consistently genuinely believed in public and private. But it doesn't matter, because you know and I know and we all know that a DC Jury under an Obama judge doesn't care and won't grant a fair trial.

He-said-he-said: Trump must be lying, because Pence's testimony suggests he was. Meanwhile, two days before, Pence was publicly aligning himself with Trump's position.

No. You are conflating two very distinct propositions:

  1. The election was rigged.
  2. The VP has the authority to reject the election's results.

Pence made vague statements supporting proposition 1. He clearly and explicitly rejected proposition 2.

They are indeed, and then can assign criminal or civil penalties on that basis. It's a truly excellent system, very orderly.

The system isnt failing the people, the people are failing the system.

How so? Looks to me like Trump is going to jail, and that should solve the problem.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or still playing the bit, but if the latter you've pushed it far enough that I'm officially confused.

The system is fine; much as there are changes I'd like to make, I'm not so naive to think that they'd genuinely solve our problems. A large enough group of people acting in bad faith will tank any political system you try to build.

More comments

Problem is I think Trump lying was justified. Joe was supposedly behind the Logan Act attacks on General Flynn. HRC et all created RussiaGate. Even if Trump 100% believe he lost the vote the GOP had plenty of Casus Belli to discredit the Biden regime by any means possible and treat them how he was treated.

This is Trump we're talking about. He's the only person in the universe who even has the slightest doubt that he constantly makes shit up.

Chapelle coined it right. He's an honest liar.

I expect his poll numbers to rise because of this development.

So basically, if Trump knew he had lost the election, then he would know that obstructing the certification was wrong, and therefore he would have acted with an unlawful purpose? Something like that?

I think courts have held that either knowing what they were doing is wrong or that it is unlawful are sufficient, and the final charges will probably hammer each option separately. But yeah.

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