site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   26925 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 25, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The claim “I didn’t realize a fire alarm would set off an alarm” is pretty weak.

That's not what he said. He said: “I was trying to get to a door. I thought the alarm would open the door, and I pulled the fire alarm to open the door by accident.”

That's also questionable (if you pulled the alarm because you thought that would open the door then you didn't do it by accident) but the point is: he doesn't deny intentionally triggering the fire alarm, but he claims his intent was to open the door, not to prevent the vote. And that seems at least possible. On twitter I saw this image of the location with a sign that reads:

EMERGENCY EXIT ONLY
PUSH UNTIL ALARM SOUNDS (3 seconds)
DOOR WILL UNLOCK IN 30 SECONDS

(But note that in the still of Bowman pulling the alarm that sign seems to be missing! Which maybe explains why he pulled the fire alarm lever on the wall instead of pushing the exit bars as the instructions by the door suggest.)

This does make it sound like you can open the door by setting of the fire alarm (which also makes logical sense), though it's pretty clear you're only supposed to do that in case of an emergency. Maybe Bowman thought that the alarm would be local and he could just shut it off after opening the door, or maybe he knew the building would be evacuated but thought nobody would know he was the one that triggered the alarm. Either way, it doesn't show that he pulled the alarm in order to delay the vote happening at the Capitol.

The evidence against an intentional action is this:

  1. The building that was evacuated was the Canon Hill building across the street, not the Capitol building where the vote occurred. If he wanted to prevent a vote wouldn't it make more sense to pull the alarm in the Capitol building itself?
  2. The bill was passed with near-unanimous Democrat support, including from Bowman. Not to mention that Democrats have absolutely no interest in a government shutdown with a Democratic president in charge. Why would a Democratic congressman want to obstruct the voting on a bill he is in favor of?

This only makes sense in the context the lawmaker tried to open the door and it was locked. Is there any evidence to support that?

Note reports circulated yesterday that the Dems wanted to slow it down a bit to be able to read the CR. So there was motive.

No one should expect criminal charges short of Bowman writing a confession in someone else's blood. It's more just funny to watch how many pundits are willing to admit they can't read, for a defense no one cares about, over a matter that's got never going to cost their side a thing.

The complexity of proving motive in honest cases is difficult (though there's been no shortage of cases where that bar gets set pretty low!), but

And there's a much more straight-forward local charge for pulling a fire alarm outside of an emergency, which he also won't be facing.

The building that was evacuated was the Canon Hill building across the street, not the Capitol building where the vote occurred. If he wanted to prevent a vote wouldn't it make more sense to pull the alarm in the Capitol building itself?

I don't think incompetence is particularly effective as a defense, but separately a number of Representatives were working from that building (including Bowman).

Why would a Democratic congressman want to obstruct the voting on a bill he is in favor of?

At the time Bowman pulled the alarm at 12:05PM, (which we know some House Reps 'panicked' over), House Democratic leadership was asking for more time to review the bill. Which doesn't mean that the alarm would have worked for that purpose, or even that Bowman (correctly or incorrectly) suspected it would, but it's not so clear that there's no possible motive.

On twitter I saw this image

You can also see the fire alarm in that image. It's bright red and says "FIRE".

The building that was evacuated was the Canon Hill building across the street, not the Capitol building where the vote occurred. If he wanted to prevent a vote wouldn't it make more sense to pull the alarm in the Capitol building itself?

This is no doubt evidence that could be brought up, however it would also make logical sense to me that the whole Hill would be evacuated/go into lockdown in the event of an unplanned fire alarm in one of the complex's buildings.

The bill was passed with near-unanimous Democrat support, including from Bowman. Not to mention that Democrats have absolutely no interest in a government shutdown with a Democratic president in charge. Why would a Democratic congressman want to obstruct the voting on a bill he is in favor of?

I read somewhere (I don't remember where), that the motive could have been to buy time to actually read the bill. Which, honestly, is a great motive. I'd be in favor of multiple hours-long fire drills so that they would actually read every stupid 2000-page bill they put up for a vote. However I don't expect Bowman to be pulling the fire alarm next time the Democrats try to quickly ram through a bill.

You can also see the fire alarm in that image. It's bright red and says "FIRE".

The discussion isn't about whether or not he set off the fire alarm (he clearly did) but whether he did it with the intent to prevent/delay the vote on the funding bill happening in the nearby Capitol building. That's not so clear.

Maybe Bowman will eventually admit something along the lines of “I set off the fire alarm because I was in a rush to leave the building” which is pretty bad (and probably against some law or other) but it's an order of magnitude better than “I set off the fire alarm because I wanted to stop congress from voting on a bill”, which makes him guilty of a felony that carries up to 20 years in prison as a penalty.

I read somewhere (I don't remember where), that the motive could have been to buy time to actually read the bill. Which, honestly, is a great motive.

For Bowman this doesn't strike me as a great reason to risk 20 years imprisonment, which honestly makes me think it's more likely the “I was in a hurry to leave the building” excuse is genuine.

  1. Was the door locked? Did he try to open it before he literally pulled a fire alarm?

  2. Why not take the tunnels instead of pulling a fire alarm?

The discussion isn't about whether or not he set off the fire alarm (he clearly did) but whether he did it with the intent

The obviousness of it being a fire alarm speaks to intent, I would think. Unless the defense is "I'm a huge idiot who doesn't know what a fire alarm is". If it was some special gold-plated Capitol Hill fire alarm variant I could believe it was unintentional. But it is a totally standard fire alarm you'd see all over the country.

As to the rest of your post, the real issue here is that only the left receives this much charity from the legal system and the mainstream media.

I'm starting to think you're trolling me, but in the interest of assuming good faith, I'll say for the third and final time: the question isn't whether he had the intent to set off the fire alarm but whether he set off the fire alarm with the intent to stop the vote.

The obviousness of it being a fire alarm speaks to intent

It only speaks to an intent to set off the fire alarm, not an intent to disrupt an official proceeding. The question is: why did he set off the fire alarm? Three options:

  1. He mistook the fire alarm for a door release button.
  2. He thought triggering the fire alarm would allow him to open the door, so he could get to the Capitol building in time for the vote.
  3. He thought triggering the fire alarm would cause an evacuation of the Capitol building which would mean the vote would be postponed.

You can say the obviousness of the fire alarm makes option 1 unlikely (and I mostly agree) but it does not prove option 3 over 2.

As to the rest of your post, the real issue here is that only the left receives this much charity from the legal system and the mainstream media.

Yes, that's a problem, but that doesn't prove the intent of Bowman.

Maybe it makes sense for the Republicans to assume the worst because when it came to the January 6th protesters the Democrats assumed the worst, but here on this forum we are not active participants in the culture war, we're only discussing it. I think the Jan 6 protesters were judged much too harshly, but I'm also willing to entertain the notion that Bowman is just a dumbass who was in a rush (option 2), rather than a man intent on undermining American democracy (option 3).

Is there any evidence that Bowman was facing time pressure? The relevant questions are:

  1. Did Bowman try the door prior to pulling the alarm?

  2. How quickly did Bowman need to get to the house?

  3. Were there other routes that would’ve taken the same time (eg the tunnels) without causing the obvious disruption?

Seems like those should be answered prior to granting Bowman charity. I don’t think Bowman is a high character guy given him almost assaulting Massie so I am biased against Bowman but it still — without more evidence really strains credulity that someone thought “I need to get to the house so let me pull this fire alarm to get out of here faster.” the thought process is just so foreign to me.

Just to push back on the idea that this action doesn’t point to three over two, I’ll point out that I’ve never seen a situation in which one would pull a fire alarm for the purpose of gaining access to a building. There are cases where security requires that you push a button so that they can buzz you through security, but even then, it’s never a fire alarm. It’s a security call button of some sort.

Thus it seems really odd that anyone would rationally decide that one should open a door by pulling a fire alarm. It makes sense to pull the alarm to empty a building or prevent people from speaking or otherwise disrupt.

I'm also willing to entertain the notion that Bowman is just a dumbass who was in a rush (option 2), rather than a man intent on undermining American democracy (option 3).

I agree with you. I’m sorry it sounds like I’m trolling. gattsuru has worded the point better than I can, though he can laugh at the double standard while I find it profoundly black-pilling. There’s nothing more depressing than a one-sided “justice system”. This fire alarm situation will soon be memory-holed and Bowman will face zero consequences. Meanwhile there are peaceful protestors facing 20 years in prison and the only difference is their politics. I’d like to be principled and treat Bowman as an idiot that made an accident, but that’s suicidal at this point.

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