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 -
"More likely than not" that the plaintiff had to prove, which she seemed to fail to submit evidence to do so. Meaning the lack of evidence would fall on her, giving a default judgement to the defendant.
Partial, very cherry picked evidence. For example we did not get raw bank statements, we got an excel spreadsheet with her claims of the transactions (which conflicted with the following) + a heavily filtered set of bank statements that only showed transfers from 4 places: Her account -> Joint, His -> Her, Her -> His, Joint -> Her, for a set time period which was not the full relationship length. We got screenshots from another camera looking at the screen of the phone with cropping applied. We got a credit card statement with plenty of charges that she made (due to the location, he was in Turkye and Europe) but the final amount was stated as what he owed her.
So I guess if your stance is that bad biased evidence is more believable than no evidence, thats definitely a stance, though I'm not sure you'd like that applied to your interlocutors in the future.
North Carolina allows for civil fraud. Not sure what to tell you. If you want to type it into an LLM it will tell you the exact same thing. I tried to find the exact statue but ChatGPT seems to suck at that for some reason (probably indexing the page). All I can say is that I got instructions from the judge with the rest of the jury and fraud was one of the charges we were to consider.
What's my motivation for writing out a 3 page essay on my jury trial experiences when I hate writing, and I hate looking at my writing. Skepticism is never an unfounded trait on the internet, but if you are banking on your layman-legal knowledge as the critical support pillar, then I think you should recalibrate how much you think you actually know.
It's not enough in your opinion.
I doubt the defense felt further evidence would have helped their case, given they did not seek it in discovery. In this situation it's likely as another comment already explained to you, they submitted enough that they felt was convincing without having to expose the two parties even further than necessary.
No, you don't get to acknowledge you used the wrong terminology in another comment and then do this game here. I am well aware civil fraud is a thing, but what you said was fraud charges. That is incorrect.
As I explained in the other reply, this was because there was only two options. Either you were mistaken or you were lying. I didn't know which one, just that one of them had to be the case.
You were mistaken and therefore I was right. It was either of the two, and it ended up being one of them. If you do not understand the concept of "either or" and take one of the options as a direct accusation, then that is on you.
I acknowledged that I could be using less precise terminology, because I'm not an asshole. You seem to want to be seen as one instead.
I'm not mistaken, I'm just not pedantic af about syntax. Which apparently you are. Good to know.
If you're not mistaken when saying the civil court was handling fraud charges, then the other option must apply and you would be lying instead because as I established, civil courts would not handle that.
"You are mistaken" is the nice explanation for the false claim you made. We have an known to be incorrect claim and two possible explanations, choose one.
The difference is between fraud charges and fraud claims is pedantic and not how I think. I reject your dichotomy as I reject most dichotomies. This could have been an informative post with you correcting me and explaining the difference. Instead you decided to be an ass as your the default. I suppose that is good evidence against future behavior that you do. MKC's default behavior is to find any disagreement and try to be right no matter what, without helping anyone learn anything.
And yet the difference between criminal charges and not exists regardless.
I was illustrating how in your argument against democracy, where you essentially propose yourself as an enlightened individual unlike those Karens, you failed to understand some very basic concepts and terms. It's a great irony. Had you not approached with the ego that you were better than the rest there, perhaps you would not need to be humbled when you messed up such simple parts.
Right, so this is actually the real reason. You want to humble me. You took 1 word, mentioned 1 time in my 2,485 word train-of-thought pseudo-diary entry, submitted without proof-reading, spell-check, or LLM-proofing, after midnight because I couldn't sleep as I was brooding about the preceding several days, and decided to raise a massive stink about it. You might want to do some soul searching to determine if you are really the arrogant one, and this is all just a massive amount of projection.
Yes because being a pedantic wordcell is the height of enlightenment. Of course! How did I not know in whose steps I needed to tread. I'm sure being a great lawyer or english teacher results in the best governance!
Yes, the real reason of me showing you some of your basic comprehension mistakes to demonstrate that you're not some smartiepants who knew everything compared to the other jurors who were stupid for checks notes disagreeing with you, was to do exactly that. Good job detective.
That might be your argument now, but I think HaG2 has you right on the money: You got hung up on the terminology but you basically can't admit it. You also seem to be going for maximum belligerence for no reason. Now I standby my earlier comment with the addition that being this places whipping boy has rotted your brain. You've somehow lost the plot of this forum.
No I'm actually a retarded midwit, as are you, as is probably the majority on this board. We all like to huff delusions of grandeur. So let me have my opinion and stay in your glass house nursing the apparent misanthropic grudge you've developed after catching a recent ban. I've sure this current behavioral track is super healthy and very conducive to not getting a ban again.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link