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 -
Not trying to demean you as a litigator but isn’t that what most of the legal system is about anyway? Most cases are just a performative exercise in plausible sophistry, and I’m not using that term disparagingly, but ultimately it’s about persuading the judge.
Isn’t it also the case as I’ve read that most parties sue in order to settle out of court? Parties that litigate to the very end are fairly rare from what I heard, which is why I remember when the Newegg case happened several years back with that one patent troll outfit, it garnered a lot of media attention and notoriety because Newegg counter sued in order to get all their patents invalidated. When the party that originally sued them first sent them a memo, Newegg basically sent a letter back saying “… Uh. Do you know who we are?…,” and they then retracted their original infringement claim but did so in a way that basically said they’d reserve the right to go after them later. That’s when Newegg attacked.
Sophistry? No. If I wanted to engage in sophistry I'd argue a lot more motions than I actually do.
I don't know if that's exactly the way I'd phrase it. Cases going to verdict are certainly rare, yes. However, a good number of cases are dismissed before it even gets close to trial, and a lot of cases will just sit on the docket because the plaintiff isn't motivated enough to get things moving. If a case is actually going to get in front of a jury then it means it has some merit and the defendant isn't going to take the chance that the jury decides it's worth more money than the plaintiff is willing to settle for. The plaintiff, on the other hand, isn't going to get greedy and pass up guaranteed money when they could be walking into a defense verdict. Add into this that the courts have a positive bias toward encouraging parties to resolve matters on their own, with some even requiring pretrial mediation, and it's so surprise most cases settle. The Newegg case happened because the calculus changed whereby it was cheaper in the long run for them to countersue in the hope that it would discourage future litigation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link