site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32873 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 10, 2022

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.

23
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is trending on Twitter Jury decides Alex Jones must pay $965 million in Sandy Hook defamation trial

The conspiracy theorist Alex Jones should pay $965 million to people who suffered from his false claim that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a hoax, a jury in Connecticut decided Wednesday.

The verdict is the second big judgment against the Infowars host over his relentless promotion of the lie that the 2012 massacre never happened, and that the grieving families seen in news coverage were actors hired as part of a plot to take away people’s guns.

It is unclear how much of the verdicts Jones can afford to pay. During the trial in Texas, he testified he couldn’t afford any judgment over $2 million. Free Speech Systems has filed for bankruptcy protection. But an economist testified in the Texas proceeding that Jones and his company were worth as much as $270 million.

There is no way he or his company can afford $1 billion. What is the point of these huge verdicts if there is no hope of it being paid. From what I understand, collecting on a judgment can be as hard as winning. Likely Mr. Jones has various forms of asset protection set up. Texas and Florida have the most generous homestead protection.

Because this is a civil matter , not criminal, it means Mr. Jones can avail himself of these protections.

The whole Alex Jones trial is banana republic kangaroo court BS. The case would have been thrown out 100x over if it was a different defendant, and now with a ridiculous judgment it is borderline unreasonable for anyone to defend any aspect of the whole farce.

Would a different defendant have been treated differently? It's true if he was the host of Planet Money and he had an otherwise normal podcast but once in awhile he shared a deranged conspiracy theory about parents of victims of kids who died in school shootings, the damages might be lessened. But probably only because because people who show up for light hearted economics chat aren't hankering to fight a culture war and act on the defamatory information.

Running a hot culture war podcast has higher risks.

Running a hot culture war podcast has higher risks.

This is not arguing against "banana republic kangaroo court BS" -- rather the opposite, in fact.

But it only has higher risks because hot culture war listeners are excitable and the insane drivel he was spewing caused them to hurt people. That doesn't strike me as kangaroo court BS, but rather rule of law trying to enforce a modicum of reasonable behavior. Stated differently, if you want to try to wield that kind of power you need to be more responsible.

He was slandering these completely innocent private citizens at a minimum.

What's on the other side of this argument? We should live in a world where people can blast completely wrong and malicious information about you on a top 50 podcast and the law is powerless to stop them? You don't think that the punishment for that sort of behavior should be "example making"?

But it only has higher risks because hot culture war listeners are excitable and the insane drivel he was spewing caused them to hurt people.

None of these claims were litigated.

We should live in a world where people can blast completely wrong and malicious information about you on a top 50 podcast and the law is powerless to stop them?

We should live in a world where blue-checks who claim Kyle Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an AR-15 and killed three black people can be successfully sued for One Billion Dollars. Until then, yes, Alex Jones gets to blast completely wrong information too, and should only be held responsible for the actual harm (not that his statements shocked the conscience of the jury), and should in fact get to defend the case on the merits and not just go directly to the penalty phase.

We should live in a world where blue-checks who claim Kyle Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an AR-15 and killed three black people

Bad, but not the same thing?

Wasn't this Rittenhouse claim debatable enough that it had to be factually settled in a court, though? The state prosecutor argued exactly the same thing as the blue checks.

OTOH, as far as I'm aware, the claims Jones made were clearly batshit crazy and would be thrown out instantly by a judge if he ever tried to introduce them in court.

Bad, but not the same thing?

Worse. Jones never accused anyone of a serious crime, nor does he have the reach or credibility of mainstream journalists.

Wasn't this Rittenhouse claim debatable enough that it had to be factually settled in a court, though?

No. That Rittenhouse killed two people, not three, was never in dispute. That neither of those people were black was not in dispute. That he did not carry the gun across state lines was not in dispute; it wasn't clear earlier on but it was by the time many of the blue-check claims were made.

OTOH, as far as I'm aware, the claims Jones made were clearly batshit crazy and would be thrown out instantly by a judge if he ever tried to introduce them in court.

Being "batshit crazy" argues for either "not defamation" or "lower damages", not higher. Because they're less likely to be believed by third parties.

shared a deranged conspiracy theory about parents of victims of kids who died in school shootings, the damages might be lessened.

Sharing a deranged conspiracy theory is bad for the universe, in court what usually happens is the plaintiffs get laughed at and shown the door 2 weeks after they file.

What about the rest of my post?

The damages, as traditionally calculated, would not be lessened. The damages as calculated by an incredibly emotional jury, seemingly empaneled by an emotional judge, might be.

Running a CW podcast shouldn't legally have higher risks. In many ways its supposed to have less than a money podcast, because there are actually very specific rules about financial advice.

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