site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30069 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 13, 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.

Because the first sentence of the article states a bright-line rule: " the Supreme Court ruled that a person under criminal investigation has a reasonable expectation of privacy prior to charge"

That is, at least one. Like, the particular one who was in the particular case, perhaps. That guy might have had a reasonable expectation of privacy with completely different circumstances. It does not say that "any" person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their arrest regardless of the circumstances. I mean, the word "reasonable" is right in the phrase, which should be a pretty good tip off to a crack lawyer such as yourself that it's not a bright-line rule. It's a reasonableness rule.

FEAR OF LIABLITY

As I said: "total bullshit from hyper-risk-averse lawyers". Here's the thing about how people use lawyers, though. When they want to do something, they say, "Your job is to figure out how we can do this with minimum risk." When they don't want to do something, they say, "Your job is to come up with any possible risk of doing this, no matter how small or unlikely, so that we can say that we didn't do it due to legal risk."

I mean, the word "reasonable" is right in the phrase

Again, I am not familiar with the nuances of UK law in this area, and as I said, there might not be a bright-line rule. But the term "reasonable" tells us nothing about that question. The Fourth Amendment forbids only "unreasonable" searches and seizures, yet Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is filled with bright-line rules and has been for decades.

The Fourth Amendment forbids only "unreasonable" searches and seizures, yet Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is filled with bright-line rules and has been for decades.

That there may be bright-line rules contained within a reasonableness rule does not mean that the reasonableness rule is, itself, a bright-line rule. Clearly, one needs to figure out by looking at the actual opinions to determine whether there actually is a bright-line rule for some set of things underneath the reasonableness rule. We can't figure it out from a terrible summary article. You now seem to admit that "there might not be".... which was my position from the beginning. Perhaps you could help us consider the possibilities by commenting on this hypothetical, so we can see how much expectation of privacy you think is reasonable.

That there may be bright-line rules contained within a reasonableness rule does not mean that the reasonableness rule is, itself, a bright-line rule

No one said otherwise. Nevertheless, courts often draw bright-line rules when defining reasonableness. For example, ordering the passenger out of a vehicle during a traffic stop is per se reasonable.

Sure. What is the evidence that they actually did so here? That vague article doesn't nearly do the job, and you know it. You're staking your ground on the mere possibility that they could have set down a bright-line rule. We agree that there is such a possibility, so continuing to chant that adds nothing to conversation and merely makes you look obstinate rather than engaging as per the rules of this forum.

You could add to your case by commenting on this hypothetical, ya know, if you want to try contributing to the discussion and everyone's further edification.

You are the one claiming that the BBC's concern over liability is bogus, despite the opinions of UK attorneys that imply that that concern is very much legitimate. Hence, you have the burden of proof.

I have given ample evidence that there are cases where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. You have utterly refused to even engage with them. If you literally ignore anything that is said, then of course your interlocutor won't overcome your burden of proof. But, of course, everyone else can notice that you're not even trying. This is the worst form of bad faith arguing, and it violates this sub's rules.

You seem to be a bit fuzzy on what a bright-line rule is. The whole point of a bright-line rule is that details of specific cases are irrelevant. Hence, if the UK court established a bright-line rule, then it doesn't matter whether or not everyone knows the name of the player who was arrested; the media cannot report his name, regardless. The same is true of your hypotheticals.

Hence, if

This is the thing that you have utterly failed to establish and that I have consistently challenged. Even try.

EDIT: You say:

The same is true of your hypotheticals.

So, you're actually going to comment? Will you unambiguously state, for the record, that your belief is that in this situation, UK law clearly and unambiguously says that Mr. So-and-So has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his arrest? Will you unambiguously state, for the record, that your belief is that all media outlets will refrain from posting his name in the article about the hullabaloo on their website, their twitter accounts, etc.? Will you unambiguously state, for the record, that your belief is that all their lawyers will tell them that they have to refrain from doing so because of legal risk?

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