site banner

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
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.

Shame we couldn't have gotten a judgement like this against Oberlin for their harassment lawsuit loss. Could have wiped out their entire endowment.

No it’s not a shame. One bad act shouldn’t destroy a 100 year old institution. Unless the act is super bad like genocide etc. The business received enough money to cover their loss.

Under this doctrine America would just become a lawsuit civilization.

One bad act shouldn’t destroy a 100 year old institution.

But it's OK if it destroys a 50 year old man instead, right?

This feels low effort and a bit of a Democrats response.

Reminds me of their COVID response where to save one 85 year olds life we locked 400 people up and kept 100 kids out of school.

Proportionality matters.

This feels low effort and a bit of a Democrats response.

"Low effort" is platitudes about it being wrong to destroy a 100 year old institution for a bad act in a thread about the destruction of a 50 (well, 48) year old man for a similar bad act.

The judgement against Alex Jones was over $950 million dollars. That's "proportional"? To what?

Two wrong don’t make a right. I have at no point said Alex Jones deserves to pay $950 million. Honestly I think it’s an 8th Ammendment violation.

I have the same view on judgements against my enemies as I do against my allies.

Why would it destroy the institution, rather than lead the institution to be sold to someone else?

Because of loss of the endowment, which was the explicit goal of the person that sliders was responding to.

The size of the Oberlin penalty looks about right to me. Slightly different facts would mean no penalty at all for Oberlin, and the jury wanted to make sure that the lesson got learned this time.

I point you to OP. It already is.