site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   2916 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.

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.

Again, I don't know what the effect of the entire exchange will be. But once the lawyer broached the subject, the plaintiff* had three options.

  1. Apologize for a lapse of judgment

  2. Double down

  3. Lie, by pretending he didn't know who the tweet was referring to.

Dude chose #3, which was stupid. As a lawyer at a top tier litigation firm once told me, "Once a jury figures out you are lying, they will kick you in the nuts again and again and again."

And to repeat, the issue of whether the lawyer was wise to raise the issue is completely different from whether the plaintiff's response was smart

to many people this is going to be an entertaining insult.

I don't know how voir dire works in Australia, but in the US the defense attorneys would have worked hard to keep such people off the jury.

*This is a libel suit. The lawyer is representing a defendant.

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