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 -
Alex Jones just lost a lawsuit for defamation for claiming that Sandy Hook was a hoax and the reward was $965bil (after a previous $50mil verdict so its over a billion) for defamation and emotional damages. Jones is a kook, and his claim was both false, and outrageous; but I'm not 100 percent sure he even should have lost. Esp for the emotional damage part. I don't think people should be entitled to damages because they feel hurt by what you say. As far as the defamation part if he claimed particular people created the hoax then I can understand a loss of a defamation lawsuit, but if its just a general comment along the lines of "I think it's a hoax" I don't think he should face any legal penalty for it. And a billion dollars for spouting off some nonsense seems ridiculous to me.
I suspect that he will appeal (I understand he tried to appeal the previous case all the way up to the Supreme Court, who refused to accept the case), and that the case won't be overturned on appeal, but perhaps the damages will be reduced.
There was also some talk about harassment and death threats against people suing Jones. If it can be proven that Jones was behind it I suppose that could be ground for a lawsuit (and perhaps even criminal charges depending on the details), but that would be a separate issue than defamation or emotional distress over the original comment.
Jones spent years scapegoating these families. Claiming they lied, that their children were fine. He combed over footage of grieving parents pointing out “acting.” This was broadcast to an enormous and enthusiastic audience, some of whom proceeded to threaten these Deep State shills.
It was a clear case of “communicating to a third party false statements about a person that result in damage to that person's reputation,” or defamation. Whether or not you think the corresponding legal penalties are appropriate, he has no defense.
If people were pissing on the grave of my murdered son, threatening to dig up an “empty” coffin, I think I’d have objections to the guy selling that narrative.
This makes me wonder if any Holocaust deniers ever been sued for this. Much less ordered to pay a billion dollars? This isn't a snarky rhetorical question--it seems like it would fit a very similar set of criteria to what you are describing here and I don't know the answer. The Holocaust was certainly worse than Sandy Hook, so I would think Jones's punishment would be less.
In the mid-90s, David Irving tried to sue an author for libel after she wrote that he was "one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial." His suit was shot down since she was able to provide proof of his garbage scholarship.
A better example might be the Mermelstein suit, in which a Holocaust survivor sues the premier revisionist organization for breach of contract. In that case, the plaintiff got the promised $50k prize, plus a similar amount in damages. But it was the early 80s, and the IHR hadn't engaged in actual defamation (yet).
How would bad scholarship be relevant to him being a dangerous spokesperson for Holocaust denial?
The first bit was just my choice to show relevance to the OP. She had more scholarly criticism elsewhere.
I don't understand. You said that his suit was shot down because she was able to provide proof of garbage scholarship. Is your assumption then that if Irving had ironclad proof that the Holocaust did not happen he would be considered less of a 'dangerous' holocaust denier?
There was more than one point of contention.
Finding instances where he used fake sources defended her claims that he was bending the truth. Claiming that he was a Hitler fanboy and Holocaust denier was pretty easy. I believe the defense for calling him dangerous was his association with violent neo-Nazi groups.
But I suppose you’re welcome to check the actual judgment. Paragraphs 2.10 and 2.15 had the specific claims.
You're not answering the point relevant to what you yourself wrote. You said that his suit was shot down because she was able to provide proof of garbage scholarship. Is your assumption then that if Irving had ironclad proof that the Holocaust did not happen he would be considered less of a 'dangerous' holocaust denier?
I fail to see what light the court judgment would shed on your own statements.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link