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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This may end up being true, I think the motivation here is that the courts don't want to take any chances, despite knowing they can't stop everything. I don't think you'd claim that what Trump says doesn't matter at all, right? There's always going to be at least some people at the margins that might be swayed one way or another. There's already a woman who called Judge Chutkan and left a voicemail saying "Hey you stupid slave nigger, you are in our sights, we want to kill you." and "If Trump doesn't get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you, so tread lightly, bitch. You will be targeted personally, publicly, your family, all of it." This woman has a history of calling other officials with similar threats, and her dad says all she does is sit on the couch watching the news every day and getting shitfaced on beers.
So she probably doesn't have the wherewithal to actually get off her ass and actually carry out the threats. But there's 330 million people in this country, if someone out there can get so enmeshed in Qanon lore that they drive themselves to DC to rescue the kids in the pizza shop basement, that's a lot of unknown variables.
There's people that will leave insane voicemails no matter what Trump says. I'm willing to grant that it's theoretically possible that absolutely nobody is swayed by what Trump says. but the court system has no reason to take that chance, especially when Trump's attacks are so irrelevant and pointless.
They're also drowned out. Like, in a normal case where John did some crime and wants to intimidate Jim into not testifying, nobody else in the world gives a shit. Jim gets pressure from John, and that's it.
In this case, everybody else in the world gives a shit. Every media outlet; every power broker; every cop with a badge or prosecutor with a half-baked charge in a different jurisdiction; everybody is already pressuring potential witnesses up to eleven. To slightly butcher a line from an evergreen Onion skit, some want them to do one fucking thing; others want to do some other fucking thing. And they're all perfectly legally allowed to do all sorts of shit to pressure them (even if they're not technically allowed by the rules; ain't nobody gon' prosecute them). The only person in the world who is not allowed to pressure them is Trump.
If you want to argue for a rule that defendants should be allowed to pressure witnesses, I'd be very eager to read it.
I think I was pretty clear that I was pointing out how this case was an exception.
Though, I sort of like Nybbler's point. Would you support a rule prohibiting the prosecution... actually, the State as a whole (including, see Biden v. Missouri, the State pressuring third parties to pressure witnesses)... from pressuring witnesses?
I respect @The_Nybbler 's stance because it's consistent and stated with clarity. I don't want to obfuscate your point here and so it makes sense to distinguish between pressuring the witness to tell the truth, versus to lie, versus not testifying at all. In terms of my own position, pressuring witnesses to tell the truth should always be fair game for everyone (I might endorse exceptions but none come to mind), and pressuring them to lie/withhold should always be punished or discouraged. In the scenario where only one side is "allowed" to do the latter, then ideally we make them stop doing it, but if that's not possible then I would echo Nybbler's call for equivalence as second best (not ideal given the potential for spiraling out).
So I don't know what you mean exactly when you say "pressure". Trump's interest appears to be having witnesses not testifying, and that's bad.
FYI when I said that Trump's attacks are "irrelevant and pointless" I was referring to this attacks on the judge's clerk and the families of prosecutors. None of them are witnesses, and I don't see what goal he's achieving besides a blanket reprisal campaign.
I think the difficulty starts right about here. We have no external reference by which to distinguish between these two options. Which leads to the difficulty with:
If we cannot externally distinguish between the first category and one of the two options in the latter category, we're in trouble. If one party believes that the other is pressuring a witness to lie, then they may reasonably hope to simply cause them to not testify. Since we cannot tell whether the supposition in the last sentence is true, we're in a bit of a pickle.
Setting that aside for now, do you have any objections to the standard I outlined, at least in principle? You're free to then argue that "Every media outlet; every power broker; every cop with a badge or prosecutor" is pressuring witnesses to either lie or withhold testimony.
As a first principle, sure. But we have another first principle (we have no external reference by which to distinguish between two options) as well. Together, I suppose they make a second principle, which sort of obviates the first principle.
It would be like saying that we could agree to the principle that it would be nice for everyone to get exactly the things they earn/deserve/whatever. Sure, but literally two seconds later, we scrap the entire project due to equally strong first principles cutting against any chance of achieving such a thing.
Well you already stated a claim, and it would be helpful to specify what you exactly meant subjectively when you said "everyone is pressuring witnesses". Do you mean that the witnesses are being pressured to lie or withhold their testimony? Or maybe they're being pressured to tell the truth, but maybe that's bad? Avoiding specificity about what you exactly mean by "pressuring" makes it likely that your point would be obfuscated through vagueness.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've seen a case where prosecutors sent Child Protective Services to take away a witness's children, so they could make a deal for said witness to get their children back if they testified against the defendant. If that's allowed (and it is), than pressure from the defendant should certainly be allowed. If you tie the defendant's hands while giving the prosecution free reign, you're making a mockery of the system (which, to be fair, should be roundly mocked).
It's a very principled stance and I respect that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link