site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   27519 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 6, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Because he came across state lines with a gun, and ended up shooting his political opponents. Again, based on facts that emerged, I do not think that he premeditated; in fact, I am sure that he did not, and I am sure that his acquittal was correct. But probable cause is quite a low bar, and of course is based on evidence known at the time of the arrest.

  • -11

Because he came across state lines with a gun

He didn't, the gun literally never left Wisconsin. Why do people keep repeating this one? And ehy do they keep making a big deal over him "crossing state lines" when his job was in Kenosha and it was 30 minutes away from his home. It's like if someone from NYC shot someone in Jersey City, no one would make a big deal out of it. He actually lived closer to Kenosha than the 3 people he shot.

I already talked about that; I meant what the police believed at the time, because that is all that is relevant to the issue of the arrest.

  • -11

You've given zero evidence for that though.

Hm.

I don't think 'he opposed their political position' is very strong evidence of murder, but maybe that's just me. He said he didn't mean to, and what the suspect claims is what really matters.

What element of murder is it that you think is satisfied by that video?

I don't. But I'm not the person who just said "ended up shooting his political opponents" was evidence of not just murder but premeditated murder!

It is evidence, albeit slight, of premeditation in every case. The issue in the recent case is whether it is evidence that it was murder at all. That is a different question.

Again, if more evidence surfaces that indicates that this professor acted very violently, or whatever, then that IG post might become highly relevant. But it isn't very relevant now. And the point is what police know at the time of arrest. A police officer who knows that someone who intentionally killed two people and shot another, and who then finds out that the victims are the shooter's enemies, would have to be a moron not to suspect premeditation, even if that suspicion turns out to be unfounded.

And that is why Grosskruetz was arrested for brandishing, right? We had video evidence of him aiming at a retreating man, he spoke both before and after at length about how he opposed what Rittenhouse was standing for, and it later turned out his concealed carry permit had been revoked -- he actually was breaking the law, and given the limited legal avenues to revoke CCWs in the state, probably not just in carrying concealed.

Or... that didn't happen, no one cared, and you can't even get media coverage of the whole "armed ACLU 'observer' nearly shot a teenager who was defending himself."

You've gotta recognize how naked this salami-slicing looks. We can't have someone walking the streets after they TOOK A GUN ACROSS STATE LINES because despite clear video evidence of self-defense because it's possible that he was really guilty. Meanwhile, applauding terrorists as heroes, we really have to give the benefit of the doubt until and unless specific evidence that he "acted very violently" because it might just be involuntary manslaughter.

Which, last I checked, was still pretty damned illegal.

I'm not making a statement for which way justice should go -- there's tradeoffs each direction! -- but come off it. It's clearly not the same standard for each case.

I really don't understand what Grosskruetz has to do with anything, but, regardless:

because it's possible that he was really guilty

That is literally all that probable cause to charge a defendant requires: ""`"An information will not be set aside ... if there is some rational ground for assuming the possibility that an offense has been committed and the accused is guilty of it."' [Citation.]" (People v. Arjon (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 185, 193 [emphasis in original].

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the principle that a motivated prosecutor can charge a ham sandwich, just as a motivated police officer can form an arrest for a fallen tree trunk. I even recognize that it's possible if unlikely for clearly exonerating video to come out, and back in the op, "I don't want to extrapolate too hard from this case yet because it could end in a hard conviction next month."

Do you want to make a bet?

I am talking about how probable cause is defined, not about what a prosecutor can convince a grand jury to do. Your complaint about someone being indicted where the evidence shows only that he is possibly guilty doesn't make sense.

Note that the mere fact that a prosecutor secures an indictment does not necessarily mean the case can go to trial, because the defendant in every state I have ever heard of can move to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the evidence presented to the grand jury did not establish probable cause. See, eg, CA Penal Code sec 995; NY Crim Proc sec 210.20. Hence, there is a difference between what a prosecutor can convince a jury to do, and what constitutes probable cause.

More comments

Because he came across state lines with a gun

Please, why are you still repeating this in the year of Our Lord 2023?

Again, the point is what the police believed at the time.

Have they? Or was that something thoughtlessly repeated by the media (or even just Twitter)? He turned himself in, you think they didn't ask him where he got the gun from? You think they didn't believe him?

You think they didn't believe him?

Do I think police do not believe the statements of murder suspects, which statements reduce their culpability? I do.

Regardless, the cases are not similar. In one, you have someone bringing a gun to a protest, and ending up intentionally killing two people. In the other, you have someone bringing a bullhorn to a protest, and, as far as we know, accidentally killing someone. Of course the police are going to treat the former differently than the latter. And that is true despite the fact that Rittenhouse turned out to have acted in self-defense.

Do I think police do not believe the statements of murder suspects, which statements reduce their culpability? I do.

So you think they haven't looked up who purchased, and who was the owner of a legal firearm that was involved in an incident they were investigating.

Do you have any evidence at all that the police ever believed the gun is from out of state?

Regardless, the cases are not similar.

If that claim was irrelevant, why did you bring it up to begin with?

If that claim was irrelevant,

That isn't what "regardless" means.

I don't really care about anything that came after "regardless" in this chain. You made a claim about crossing state lines with a gun, that's what I was responding to. If it's not irrelevant back it up, or own up to be in wrong about it.

I already did.

More comments

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