site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30995 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 14, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Apologies for the delay in responding again.

It appears as though you have pretty much already stated that you would like such people to be prosecuted. My question to you is why you think people like Mike Flynn were vigorously prosecuted for substantially less troubling behavior, with respect to the same law, while it was just known that these folks were never going to get prosecuted.

I'm having a bit of trouble parsing what is going on here. I'm guessing from context that you're quoting stuff about Combetta lying to the feds or something?

Wikipedia tells me that Flynn did a plea deal admitting guilt under 18 U.S. Code § 1001(a)(2), which says:

(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—(2)makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;

It's not completely clear to me what this does and does not mean, but given Flynn was charged with it in relation to making false statements to the FBI, I'll assume it uncontroversially covers that behaviour. In which case, if I'm interpreting your quote correctly and there is solid evidence that Combetta also lied to the feds, then yes I absolutely agree that Combetta should have been prosecuted. There's a separate policy argument to be made whether or not "don't lie to feds" should be a rule, but that's a matter for Congress. Prosecutors and judges have a responsibility to apply the law as it is.

I'm not game to venture an opinion as to why the disparate treatment occurred. I can certainly imagine or hypothesize that it was for reasons of political influence, but I obviously don't actually know. But regardless of the reason, the mere fact of disparate treatment would be sufficient for me to say that the relevant decision makers should have been shown the door and more even-handed ones appointed.

Now onto Trump and the documents case:

Which actions would those be?

Wilful retention. He was repeatedly asked over the documents beginning in May 2021. He was warned that failure to comply with that failure to comply with that direction would be referred to the DoJ, and he failed to comply with that direction.

Like, for example, when Glenn Greenwald possessed national defense information belonging to the NSA, he had no right to retain them and should have handed them over rather than publish them on the internet? Would you support vigorous prosecution of Glenn Greenwald?

I'm not familiar with the particulars of this incident. But on a facial description, yes? Journalists don't get a pass to break the law just because they're journalists.

There must always be a process. There must always be a "who decides" and a when that decision is made. I think in nearly all cases, such determination would flow from Article II, just the same as for classified information.

It appears to me that the "who decides" would be the court, and the "when" would be at such point when a breach of the law is prosecuted. In much the same way as if you are charged with sending threatening messages, it is the court who will determine whether or not the content of those messages counts as "threatening".

Right, but the question is whether he actually solicited something illegal. "Can y'all have a special session and look into this?" doesn't seem like soliciting something illegal.

Absolutely correct. "Call a special session for no particular reason"? Not illegal. "Call a special session to investigate this thing?" Not illegal. "Call a special session to give your electoral votes to the loser of the election?" Illegal.

I'll get to the rest of your post later.

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