site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   2912 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for January 20, 2023

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Australia has a minor scandal involving some SAS troopers, who are accused of 'war crimes' over shooting some 'civilians' during the Afghanistan war.

The media is all over it, and one of the bigger figures in it - a former SAS corporal Ben Roberts-Smith turned media exec, one of the real life closest approximations of gigachad meme I've seen - has seen fit to file a defamation suit against a bunch of journalists over the 'war crimes' allegations in media. (see attached picture to get a sense of dude's sheer size)

Now, Ben Roberts-Smith is a fairly impressive guy with some notable flaws. From what I gather, he's a brave and competent warrior, a demanding boss, perhaps a bit of a glory hound and about as rough as you'd expect from reputation of SAS.

Some dark triad traits, but that's nothing unexpected in special forces. Probably 'guilty' of what he's accused of - he's going to be on trial for that any year now. The big deal is that his patrol is alleged to have shot a captive during clearing of a compound, and also extrajudicially executed some other captives (up to 30 allegedly) during its deployment.

Now, special forces are .. special kinds of people. Aggressive guys who just won't quit despite punishing training, expected to go into the hairiest situations in small groups, typically against far more numerous opposition, without much support.

Anyway, during the defamation suit, the attorney for the journalists saw fit to read a social media post liked by the plaintiff in court. [audio unsafe for work, small children and delicate old ladies]

I can't decide whether Roberts-Smith 'liking' a post written by one of his army buddies to provoke the attorney for the opposition was a genius or bad move , but the whole bit of situational comedy nevertheless made me day when it crossed my twitter timeline.

I'm quite sure it was some army guy - when I was reading various allegations about Roberts-Smith the eloquence, profanity and threatening nature of SAS communicationg among each other was of exactly the same tone and style as the post in question.

/images/16742842263645465.webp

I can't decide whether Roberts-Smith 'liking' a post written by one of his army buddies to provoke the attorney for the opposition was a genius or bad move

I don't know if liking that post was a genius move, but his transparent lie that he had no idea whom the tweet could possibly refer to was the opposite of genius. Jurors aren't morons, and that exchange absolutely made the lawyer's day.

As an aside, so much for the masculinity and integrity of the witness. A real man takes responsibility for his actions, including liking tweets that denigrate opposing counsel.

As an aside, so much for the masculinity and integrity of the witness.

He's Victoria Cross holder, among other things:

Demonstrating extreme devotion to duty and the most conspicuous gallantry in action in the face of a very determined and aggressive enemy and with total disregard for his own safety, Corporal Benjamin Roberts-Smith initiated an assault against an elevated fortification consisting of three enemy machine gun positions and superior numbers of heavily armed insurgents.

With members of his patrol pinned down by the three enemy machine gun positions, he knowingly and willingly exposed his position in order to draw fire away from his team mates and enabled them to apply fire against the enemy. Fighting at ranges as close as 20 metres, he seized the advantage and, demonstrating extreme devotion to duty and the most conspicuous gallantry and with total disregard for his own safety, Corporal Roberts-Smith stormed two enemy machine gun positions killing both machine gun teams.

His selfless actions in circumstances of great peril served to enable his patrol to break into the enemy�s defences and to regain the initiative, thereby resulting in a tactical victory against an enemy more than three times the size of the ground force.

http://www.victoriacross.org.uk/bbrsmith.htm

This is arguably harder to achieve than a Medal of Honor -- certainly there are fewer living holders, you can count them on one hand IIRC. (Although this is perhaps related to the Commonwealth being much less fighty than the US post-WWII)

Say what you will about his judgement, I don't think his masculinity is in question.

Well, none of this relates to the reasons that I questioned his masculinity. God knows Jordan Peterson would have a thing or two to say to him on the topic.

Jurors aren't morons, and that exchange absolutely made the lawyer's day.

...doesn't that depend on how carefully they selected the jury? Lawyers or journalists aren't exactly very admired classes..

The point is not that the jury won't like what he said about the lawyer. The point is that he is sitting on the stand, obviously lying. It is the lying that the jury won't like.

He didn't say it. He liked a post. I can't quite put myself in the head of an Anglo juror, but the lawyer comes off as extremely petty by even bringing it up.

Yes, my mistake, he liked it. Nevertheless he is clearly lying, which was stupid. The lawyer might look bad for bringing it up, but once the lawyer did so, he had several options, and chose the absolute worse.

Frankly his best option in that exact moment on the stand would've been to concede the point and say something along the lines of "sure, I can see now how you can relate this to yourself", and deliver it with that characteristic Aussie dryness. It would've scored him some points with those in his inner circle and would've served as a less obviously thin response. It may have led to further examination along that dimension but unless Australian law deviates further from English common-law than my impression of it, it shouldn't be something the prosecutor can really dive deep on.

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