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 -
Since we just had a discussion on whether #MeToo has run out of steam last week: Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs jailed by judge after sex trafficking indictment
This sounds very similar to the tactics used by Keith Raniere, which bodes ill for Diddy.
He's always been a Weinstein figure in hip hop (both in the sexual deviant sense and because he fit the stereotype of record/studio owner screwing artists over better than any Jewish exec in hip hop at this poinnt). Most of the stories centered around his homosexuality in perhaps the most openly homophobic genre. But, as with Weinstein, this goes way past the lurid stories passed around for years.
Funnily enough, I was just watching a video of one of the victims of Raniere [talk about the FBI's recalcitrance to take on the case up until it became public, at which point "speed of government" ceased to be a joke.
In this case, I wonder if Cassie's very public lawsuit against Diddy, facilitated by the Adult Survivor's Act and its extension of the statute of limitations (the same thing that got Trump in trouble with E. Jean Carroll) is what opened him up to a more vigorous investigation?
So, a MeToo win or not?
FWIW, I think that this definitely qualifies as MeToo. Powerful man, coercion, promise of advancement, all there. Much more severe than most such cases, imo.
Of course, the ASA (besides being a lex Trump) reads like a prime example of an ex post facto law, which Article one, sections 9 and 10 of the US constitution would prohibit.
But of course I am reading that all wrong. You see, the framers intent of these sections was clearly to only prohibit ex post facto laws concerning criminal cases resulting in criminal punishment, which is defined as narrowly as humanly thinkable. Having to register as a sex offender, being banned from owning firearms or even being locked up indefinitely are clearly not punishments, and having to pay money to some other party never is.
This goes hand in hand with the triple jeopardy for the same act practiced by the US. First we try you in state court. If you get acquitted in state court, we can still try you in federal court. If you also get acquitted there, we will still allow civil cases which might bankrupt you but will at least not send you to prison (unless you do not comply with the definitely-not-a-punishment regulatory prohibition to own firearms, for example).
In Germany, from my understanding, most criminal allegations go to court once only (not counting either side contesting the verdict). Generally, if you want to get damages from the defendant, you would become a joint plaintiff (Nebenklaeger). A civil court will generally be very reluctant to make a finding of fact that one party committed a criminal act in contradiction to the finding of fact of an earlier criminal trial. I also think the statue of limitations for claiming damages is the same as for the criminal act on which they are based, 'we convicted the arsonist but you can't have him pay for your house because the civil statue of limitations expired' would be silly.
--
However, here, the charges made against Combs are clearly criminal charges. I don't know how the law is in NY, so it could be that without the ASA, none of the women who alleged sex crimes would have seen a single penny from Combs, so their motivation would have been limited to sending a sex offender to jail, which is of course not as good a motivation for the painful act of going on the stand and detailing degrading sex acts as the prospect of earning a few millions in damages is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link