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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In trying to game out the Deputies' plan here, I can only assume they just thought they'd found a target with potentially deep pockets and who would just settle with them for a high six figures or something.
But they found a guy disgreeable enough to stick it out and who was a very sympathetic figure in the whole thing. And as noted, didn't burn goodwill by trying to turn it into a racial animosity moment. Which would have been a believable narrative here.
"Corrupt Cops against the First Amendment and the American Spirit" is a VASTLY more appealing framing than "racist white cops vs. downtrodden black rapper."
And showing up for the trial in American flag suit and sunglasses combo (with a perfectly coiffed afro on top) is a serious masterstroke.
I'm actually somewhat surprised the Judge let that fly, but then, the First Amendment ALSO protects the right to wear such things in court.
And the thing is, the cops in question actually had the makings of a valid case. Afroman made very specific, defamatory claims using the clear real names and likenesses of the parties he targetted. He did so intending, very specifically, to cause them reputational harm. If they were true claims, then he's very much in the clear. But surely some of those claims were just blatantly false. That's how rap beefs work, you make certain claims and boasts that are exaggerated or false but provocative to diminish the opponent's status.
It wasn't a frivolous lawsuit, just a stupid one.
I don't know how large the reputational harms could have been in money terms. Its just not a good look to get on the stand and play some goofy-looking music video by a dude whose house you did in fact raid, and pretend you're the one with the emotional trauma from this situation.
Indeed; I can easily see how that suit could win on its own merit. But the cops did a severe injustice to Afroman and in trying to get justice for a much less severe retaliation they gave a jury the power to make things right.
Pretty much.
Afroman could have waived the Jury and had a judge decide it, but either he or his attorneys realized that if the situation as a whole was put in front of a jury, it'd play very sympathetically.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Rappers seem like a very bad target for this sort of extortion . Their audience absolutely does not care about them mocking cops (one might even say it's expected), so they suffer no reputational damage from refusing to settle. You might actually make them more money.
Also, Afroman doesn't seem that rich.
I vaguely remember him having a commercial that ran on late-night 2000s TV, hawking his CD with a really low budget ad. It ran alongside that guy in the crazy suit ranting about how to get free money from the government. So yeah, I'm not surprised that he's not super rich... actually I'm kind of impressed that it actually launched a successful career for him, in the days before youtube or spotify.
More options
Context Copy link
From the CCTV videos, he has a decent amount of assets to seize to satisfy a judgment.
Agreed on the lack of reputational damage if he refused settlement, though. And he was obviously savvy enough to see that he could raise his profile if he played this one to the hilt.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It wasn't frivolous, in the sense that I understand why the judge agreed to let a jury hear the case, but it was always going to be a high bar to clear. As you say:
True, but these claims were made in the context of, as you put it, a goofy music video. The real question was whether a normal person listening to the lyrics would treat them as statements of fact. Officer Lisa may have to deal with ridicule about her supposed love for cunnilingus, but I doubt anyone making those jokes seriously believes that she licked every pussy in town. It's the Falwell case all over again. It didn't help when the defense called family members of the officers to the stand and asked them if they took similar claims made in other rap songs seriously.
I think you're mostly right there, but there is a reason that most forms of media that talk about real events will do that whole "Any similarity to actual persons living or dead is purely coincidental" disclaimer.
Had Afroman come to me before making his videos and described what he wanted to do, I would have advised him to hedge his risks. "Don't make a song about any particular cop/person, but you can make a song about corrupt cops in general" of "hire body doubles and make strong allusions to who you're talking about, but never stick their actual name or image in the song or video."
Shows what I know.
What he did is just a couple steps below this parody Grinch Song, calling them out with such precision and making it clear he's hoping people believe it. Or at least to make it a popular rumor.
Justified? I think so, he chose targets who had already done him harm, and was quite proportionate in response.
More options
Context Copy link
But Larry Flint didn't film an actor who looks like Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother in an out-house in a candid looking video. He just wrote a fake Campari ad in his own known-to-be-transgressive porn magazine claiming it was from Falwell.
Does the fact that it's video matter? I think so. Afroman repeatedly flips between footage of the real officer and an actress that looks like her. He puts himself into the scene and apologizes to her, and then shows himself and the officer (the actress) having sex and also going down on other actresses. The sex videos are all done in amateur style, further implying they're candid footage. Though the video has farcical elements, he's also clearly trying to confuse the fact that it's parody[1]
NSFW: https://youtube.com/watch?v=7wWQxSV8CK8?si=zzuL3IqUoaJGOIys&t=700s
Are we sure everyone picks up the satire?
Me, I just don't have a lot of sympathy for this. I could see some people coming away believing this. Are they reasonable people? I don't know, reasonable person is doing a lot of work I guess. To me it seems like you have to be fairly media literate to navigate this all.
Keep in mind there are people who believe grainy amateur "homemade" sex videos are really amateur sex videos of the couple alone in an unscripted intimate moment and can't quite understand that there's a third person moving the camera around to film them. I would like to believe this population is tiny but I'm not so optimistic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link