site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29299 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.

Jones also declined to put on a defense in certain suits, refused to turn over data when ordered to by a court, etc.

If it wasn’t already clear to him, he has since been made aware that trying to “boycott” a lawsuit brought against you is not the best legal strategy.

Jones Alleged the document demand of him had never existed because no such document had ever be made.

But because a single judge made 1 determination about 1 document that may or may not have even been a document, he was denied all due process, and appeals.

Both the judge in the Texas case and CT cases found that Jones was intentionally withholding discovery, including not sitting for depositions. They had previously sanctioned him and only after his continuing refusal to fully comply did the judges sanction him with a default judgement. Here's the order in the TX case laying all this out.

Turns out this Alex Jones guy might have also been lying about how unfair the judges were to him, who could have guessed?

Do you have a guess how many depositions Jones sat for and for how many hours? Do you have a guess how many depositions and how many hours Infowars employees sat for?

Turns out this Alex Jones guy might have also been lying about how unfair the judges were to him, who could have guessed?

or it turns out the vast majority of people opining on this subject don't have a clue what they're talking about

Do you have a guess how many depositions Jones sat for and for how many hours? Do you have a guess how many depositions and how many hours Infowars employees sat for?

How does that matter at all? Just because you have sat for depositions in some cases does not free you of the obligation to sit for court ordered depositions in other cases. Do you disagree that Jones has a history of failing to comply with discovery orders in a timely manner (see the order in my previous post for overview of the history)? Did Jones/Infowar employees sit for all required depositions in the case I cited (Heslin v Jones)? If you disagree with anything I said in my last post, please provide some evidence to back up your claims, preferably in the form of a document submitted to a court (i.e. something that carries penalties for misrepresentation).

How does that matter at all? Just because you have sat for depositions in some cases does not free you of the obligation to sit for court ordered depositions in other cases

because a party who has gone along with 99% of court demands and a party which has gone along with 0 (for e.g., refusing process itself) are different and justify different sanctions because sanctions are required to be narrowly tailored and not excessive

Do you disagree that Jones has a history of failing to comply with discovery orders in a timely manner (see the order in my previous post for overview of the history)?

yes

Jones has turned over more discovery than any similar case I'm aware of by quite a margin. Given the sheer breadth of granted discovery requests, orders, and depo orders (more than any similar case I've ever seen) and the sheer breadth of turned over material given that context, it really puts into context the statement "Jones has a history of failing to comply with discovery orders in a timely manner."

Uh, no. Jones and his employees have turned over more documents and sat for more depositions than any similar case I've heard of. He has a long history of cooperating with and turning over large amounts of documents in response to the absurd levels of granted discovery in this case.

Did Jones/Infowar employees sit for all required depositions in the case I cited (Heslin v Jones)?

no

when a judge requires you sit for yet another ~24 hours of depositions and ignores doctor's notes of illness demanding you show up and you don't, that would run afoul of the phrasing of your question

but then so what?

when a judge requires you turn over a document you claim not only do you not have but never existed in the first place and you fail to deliver said document, it's dishonest to simply assert "party has a history of failing to comply with discovery orders"

If you disagree with anything I said in my last post, please provide some evidence to back up your claims, preferably in the form of a document submitted to a court (i.e. something that carries penalties for misrepresentation).

you realize the court docket has answers, replies, transcripts from hearings, and motions from the defendant to all of this?

when a judge requires you sit for yet another ~24 hours of depositions and ignores doctor's notes of illness demanding you show up and you don't, that would run afoul of the phrasing of your question

Different case, one of the CT ones I believe. It's almost like there's a pattern here...

when a judge requires you turn over a document you claim not only do you not have but never existed in the first place and you fail to deliver said document, it's dishonest to simply assert "party has a history of failing to comply with discovery orders"

Citation needed. Again, I cited a court order which laid out a history of Jones refusing to comply in a timely manner (pages 2-3 of this order) and you have provided zero evidence to back up your wild claims e.g. "a party who has gone along with 99% of court demands".

Given your unwillingness to grapple with the evidence I've provided or provide any yourself, I think further discussion is unlikely to be productive.

Different case, one of the CT ones I believe

no

Given your unwillingness to grapple with the evidence I've provided or provide any yourself, I think further discussion is unlikely to be productive.

which is why you couldn't be bothered to answer my basic questions nor my argument about why they matter in the first place

instead you want to sit as a lazy arbiter where your ignorant opinions are the default and I must overcome some sufficient level of approved "source" citations over "facts" which wouldn't significantly change your opinion anyway which you've already argued

which is funny given my factual claims are all supported in the court docket from which you allegedly found the document you're linking to me containing the opinions and characterizations of a joke of a biased, activist judge who turned her courtroom into a "documentary" studio

additionally, linking some judge's opinion and characterization isn't a "citation" of the truth of those things, it's an opinion similar to yours

and no, I won't do any of that and since that's what you're here for I'll end this here as example #141213123 of why one-sided "citations!" demands are such loathsome (internet) "arguments"

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