site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   31952 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 7, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Alan Dershowitz, Virginia Giuffre, and David Boies all reached a settlement. I'll let David Lat summarize this mess:

In 2014, Giuffre accused Dershowitz, who had represented the late Jeffrey Epstein as a client, of having sex with her when she was underage. Specifically, she claimed that Epstein had sexually trafficked her to Dershowitz between 2000 and 2002. Dershowitz vehemently denied her claims, which lacked the extensive corroboration of her claims against Epstein. At the same time, it was challenging for Dershowitz to conclusively disprove Giuffre’s allegations, in part because of how much time he had spent in Epstein’s company or at one of his homes.

Giuffre’s accusations against Dershowitz spawned a series of defamation lawsuits. First, after Dershowitz denied her claims by calling her a “total liar” and an extortionist, Giuffre sued him for defamation, in April 2019. Dershowitz countersued Giuffre for defamation, in November 2019. Boies then sued Dershowitz, based on Dershowitz’s claims that Boies, who represented Giuffre, pressured her to lie as part of an extortion plot. Finally, Dershowitz sued Boies, also for defamation. Got all that?

Actually, the good news is you don’t need to keep track of any of these lawsuits, since they’re all going away. The three parties just reached a global settlement that resolves all of their pending litigation. All the cases will be dismissed and no money is changing hands, with all parties bearing their own costs and legal fees.

What struck me about the statements the parties issued is their congeniality. Giuffre admits that maybe she was mistaken about Dershowitz since the trafficking happened so long ago. When Dershowitz paraphrases her statement, he doesn't try to drop the "may" and leaves it in. Boies meanwhile acknowledges how damaging the allegations were to Dershowitz.

Obviously this is an exceptional case, and the statements the parties issued are quite possibly the most expensive words ever written in the history of the English language given the total legal bills involved. Still, it's an interesting case of how highly opinionated and stubborn characters can still come to an agreement where each side saves a little face.

Do you have any insights as to whether the parties actually believe what they're publicly stating?

Judging purely on priors:

You'd think a Harvard Law Professor would be smart enough to draw the line at sex trafficking. Sure, have an affair or two, but avoid stuff that actually gets you into prison. Plenty of powerful people make contemptible mistakes, but they tend to stick to affairs with consenting adults for a reason.

Without knowing anything about Giuffre, my guess is that anyone who's willing to go public accusing powerful people of child sex trafficking probably is brave/stubborn enough to go to till the end if they're sure of the crime. The settlement makes me think she's truly in doubt when it comes to AD. The use of the word "maybe" is perhaps more a consideration for both her credibility and the metoo movement--if she recanted fully, perhaps the public will think she's a liar, whereas the ambiguity confers onto her a slight degree of, uh, graciousness/magnanimity. On the flip side, it is a bit surprising AD is ok with the ambiguity, but at some point I think you take the settlement with zero money changing hands as a decent enough win to put a PR nightmare behind you, especially when you're 84.

Do you have any insights as to whether the parties actually believe what they're publicly stating?

It's possible the only reason this happened is because some high-billing lawyers managed to wrestle enough client control to force everyone to face the music. That said, everyone's statement comes across as perfectly reasonable, so it would be surprising if they believed none of what they said.

Epstein's scheme of doling out unprotected sex with barely legal teenagers on his private island was calculated to ensnare rich and powerful people, so it doesn't seem surprising if Dershowitz fell into that. I also think that Epstein's harem of girls would at least appear to be consenting.

For Giuffre, it depends. In rape cases, the identity of the perpetrator is rarely ever in question in my experience. Either the guy is a stranger and is nabbed because of forensic evidence, or the two knew each other, definitely had sex, but one disputes whether it was consensual. Memory is fallible, and I can't imagine what kind of hell these girls were subjected to to keep them compliant in Epstein's harem. This happened so long ago that it was inevitable for the accusation to carry some doubt, and it would not have been honest for Giuffre to ever claim otherwise. Just the same if she said it was definitely not Dershowitz. The only honest answer here is maybe.

Ah, I never followed this saga closely so missed out on the detail that it was a deliberate honeytrap. I thought it's just a service Epstein provided to gain favors and network, like how McKinsey's Rajat Gupta passed around insider trading tips for social creds rather than out of financial gain. Suppose that's not surprising because people tend not to build tremendous wealth (referring to Epstein) without being schemers who are willing to think far outside of the box.

Under that framework, perhaps I got it upside down on thinking a Harvard Law Professor would know better--they're presumably so risk-averse throughout their lives that they wouldn't even think of a host trying to blackmail them with an underaged sex slave, typical mind fallacy and all.

Wonder what the proper playbook is for a billionaire. Step one, get an amicable divorce? Step two, start funding and frequenting high-status places like art galleries and nonprofits where young attractive women gravitate to? Step three, take them out on above-board dates and hope some will sleep with you voluntarily, and make sure to go to a bar where her ID will be checked by the bartender?

If I were hired as a consultant to strategize this, I'd probably also suggest multiple billionaires group together and roam each other's nonprofits and art galleries so it's harder to accuse them of abusing direct-report relationships. Nothing wrong with dating someone who works for your friend, right?

Ah, I never followed this saga closely so missed out on the detail that it was a deliberate honeytrap.

When I said "calculated to ensnare", I meant it more as "marketed towards". I think that Epstein was using his harem to gain favors and network, I'm not sure if it was indeed a deliberate honeytrap although that's plausible given the age of the people involved.

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