site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   30711 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 12, 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.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I've found it impossible to find thorough, unbiased reading material about the Alex Jones/Sandy Hook trial. My take is "what he did shouldn't be illegal, but if it is, wouldn't removing the content from the internet and issuing a retraction be enough?" I'd appreciate some reading material if anyone has any.

"what he did shouldn't be illegal, but if it is, wouldn't removing the content from the internet and issuing a retraction be enough?"

There's no reason to talk about anything except the legal issues surrounding the default, which was in some ways odd and in some ways justified. Anyone talking about the huge award is kinda off-base without first understanding that Jones essentially didn't defend himself against it. It's impossible to strike a deal to apologize and retract without showing up, si vis pacem para bellum and all that. Just like you can't negotiate an end to a war without having an army that's shouting how it will fight to the end you can't negotiate an end to a lawsuit when you've defaulted.

Anyone talking about the huge award is kinda off-base without first understanding that Jones essentially didn't defend himself against it

Was this stated somewhere you all are repeating it from? I regularly see this "essentially didn't defend himself against it" phrasing on this forum, but I'm trying to figure out how this is an accurate description of either Alex Jones "trials." Alex Jones was explicit barred from a trial on the merits and from arguments on the merits guaranteed to him by both Connecticut and Texas law. In a "trial" allegedly about only "damages," Alex Jones was barred from making relevant arguments (for e.g., various valuation claims) and he was barred from presenting relevant evidence (for e.g., the political bent of witnesses against him) while both judges allowed plaintiff's lawyer to argue irrelevant arguments and present irrelevant evidence. Both "judges" banned Jones from making any comment about a wide range of topics which "essentially" required him to admit his own liability despite his liability admission being irrelevant in this legal default holding in order to make a defense case after the plaintiff's case-in-chief.

So Alex Jones defends himself in the only way he's allowed to by undermining the plaintiff's arguments and witnesses during their case-in-chief and because he doesn't mouth the words whereby he acquiesces to the "judges" forcing him to admit liability, people regularly claim Jones "didn't defend himself," except he did "defend himself."

which was in some ways odd and in some ways justified

by "odd," you mean it essentially never happens outside of very specific circumstances whereby a defendant doesn't respond to process at all

that isn't remotely what occurred in any of the Jones cases and in every similar case the most extreme sanction which would have been handed down would be an inference instruction

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