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 -
18:30 in clip is about when the crying starts. The whole thing is bizarre. They play an Afroman song on YouTube in court. There's a stripper and implied cunnilingus involved. In the actual courtroom, Afroman is wearing an American Flag suit.
This song seems clearly defamatory to me. The video makes it even worse with an actress pretending to be the cop going down on a woman and then acting out having sex with Afroman.
I can only conclude the jury hated cops enough and got caught up enough in the bogusness of the search warrant that they let him slide.
Or... everyone is just media literate enough now to find all of this funny? Rural Ohio juror grandmas watching the three strippers laying on his counter with their legs up, then the video of her actress having sex with him? "Yep, seems like non-defamatory free speech".
I'm pretty sure if I tried flirting with a barista, she shut me down, and I took revenge by hiring an actress that looked like her and then created a music video depicting her as being mega slutty and then myself having hate sex with her and her loving it and blasted it to millions of people I'd be found guilty of defamation. The jury is only okay with this because she was a cop involved in a bogus search of his house and not a barista.
They don't have to find it funny, lots of insults aren't funny or entertaining. They just have to find it not defamatory. Like one important question is would people who watched actually believe this was a serious accusation as opposed to making fun of her as an insult, like just calling someone a slut or a whore as many angry people do to women?
FIRE at least believes Afroman was within his rights here and they aren't motivated by cop hating.
Funny is not the operative part. They just have to get what he's trying to do. But it's more than just words though. There's 14 minutes of video of him trying to sexually humiliate her. My argument is further articulated here: https://www.themotte.org/post/3618/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/423167?context=8#context
Separately from that, what about this from my OP?
I'm positive I'd be found liable if I did this to a barista. But because it's a cop you could squint and argue maybe she's subject to more scrutiny but... how? She's a public official that executed a search warrant on his home, okay. Talk about how retarded she looked in his house. Talk about how crooked she is for being part of a search warrant that was bogus. Talk about her record as a cop. What does 14 minutes of soft core shot in amateur porn style video about what a raging whore she is have to do with any of that?
The difference is that the cop, acting in their official capacity as an agent of the state, performed what appears to be a bunch of unjust and legally actionable violations of his civil rights. Afroman is offering criticism to specifc agents of the state for their specific actions that in his eyes, warrant such criticism.
A barista doing her job for Starbucks is in both a socially and leglly different position. It has been long established in case law that defamation of public figures or state actors has a much higher bar than private figures.
Okay, so, if you get pulled over by a female cop and written a ticket for a broken tail light and you feel this was unjust you get to hire an actress to play her and act out a 14 minute long amateur porn style sexual humiliation music video about her? Because she's an agent of the state and subject to more criticism? Including this kind of criticism?
It's true, in some of the videos he is indeed criticizing or mocking the officers in their official capacity. Like the fat officer in his house seemingly tempted by the lemon pound cake. Or for seizing $400 cash. But in Licc'em Lisa video he's just portraying her as a whore going around town licking clit and ultimately getting seduced and fucked by Afroman.
I reiterate that it feels the jury was so annoyed by the officers doing a bogus search and bringing claims over justified criticism that they just overlooked this really gross one that came later.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link