site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34566 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 6, 2023

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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I appreciate you took the time to dive into this. To help us both, we can reference as a template the standard utilized in the Gibson's Bakery defamation lawsuit that Oberlin University lost. Starting on page 11 of the appeal, you can see an example of how to determine whether a statement is factual, and an important factor is whether or not it's "verifiable". So something like "this painting is beautiful" is not verifiable, while "this painting was made by Bob" is.

I would agree with you that Baritomo's "irregularities" is too ambiguous to be a statement of fact.

Regarding Powell's statement:

"That is where the fraud took place, where they were flipping votes in the computer system or adding votes that did not exist"

If you believe this is too speculative to be considered a statement of fact, how would you edit the sentence to make it less speculative? I highlighted the pertinent clauses and I literally cannot contemplate how to make it any more of a statement of fact. Either fraud happened or did not. If the fraud happened, either it happened in the computer systems or not. Either Dominion flipped votes or not. Either they added votes or did not. Virtually everything she said is a statement of fact, and I don't know by what standard you're using to say otherwise.

Regarding Dobbs' example, I don't know how else to interpret the phrase "which were designed to be inaccurate" except to describe intent. Either the system was designed or it wasn't, and if it was designed either it was designed to be inaccurate or it wasn't. This is especially lucid considering it's in the context of Powell's theory that she's "identified mathematically the exact algorithm they used and planned to use from the beginning to modify the votes in this case to make sure Biden won"

Your last paragraph is what we in the business call conclusory. You're just making a claim without explaining its basis. I don't know your expertise with defamation law, but if you can confidently assert that the MSJ is not "related to the law in any way" I would assume you can show your work easily. Quoting a 90s comedy unfortunately doesn't count.

If you believe this is too speculative to be considered a statement of fact, how would you edit the sentence to make it less speculative? I

You'd eliminate the or statement. It would be flipping votes. OR its would be adding votes. It would include a method and place. For example, "That is where the fraud took place, where they were flipping votes in the computer system in Maricopa County using a DNC backdoor."

I would assume you can show your work easily.

No, you shouldn't assume that. It is about reading a nearly 200 page document that, if actually focused on the law, would be a 40 page document (or less to be honest), introduces itself with irrelevant statements made by Fox hosts out of context, does not contain a concise section that lists the alleged defamatory statements (instead they are scattered throughout the document), etc etc. It looks like a political document masquerading like a legal document.

You'd eliminate the or statement.

Ok that does indeed make it more factual by mitigating some ambiguity. But if so, you're presenting an extremely high standard for defamation, one I don't believe is reflected in any jurisdiction. For example, the statement from the Gibson's Bakery (linked above) that it had a "long account of racial profiling and discrimination" is similar to what you described as:

basically like saying "racism". They guest then states a wildly speculative position that contains a mixture of facts and opinion.

The court in that case found that it was a statement of fact. If you were to apply the standard you outlined in a consistent manner, you would disagree with that part of the Oberlin decision. Am I incorrect?

It looks like a political document masquerading like a legal document.

I'm assuming that you could only come to this conclusion if you've read multiple defamation motions summary judgment in order to get a sense of what the landscape looks like. If so, can you link to a MSJ that you believe meets your standards?

I'm assuming that you could only come to this conclusion if you've read multiple defamation motions summary judgment in order to get a sense of what the landscape looks like.

Defamation, no. You see, almost no cases proceed to that in defamation because they get anti-SLAPPed out of court. But this does not look like a MSJ in any of the other types of cases I've seen or written.

This is true, it's generally very difficult to win a defamation case but then again few cases have the treasure trove of evidence that Dominion got a hold of.

Do you agree that Oberlin should not have been found liable for defamation based on the statement I highlighted? Like you mentioned, it's like "racism".

This is true, it's generally very difficult to win a defamation case but then again few cases have the treasure trove of evidence that Dominion got a hold of.

Correct, because they don't get discovery.

Do you agree that Oberlin should not have been found liable for defamation based on the statement I highlighted? Like you mentioned, it's like "racism"

Oberlin's defamatory statement was:

This is a RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION... A member of our community was assaulted by the owner of this establishment yesterday. A nineteen y/o young man was apprehended and choked by Allyn Gibson of Gibson’s Food Mart & Bakery. The young man, who was accompanied

by 2 friends was choked until the 2 forced Allyn to let go. After [t]he young man was free, Allyn chased him across College St. and into Tappan Square. There, Allyn tackled him and restrained him again until Oberlin police arrived. The 3 were racially profiled on the scene. They were arrested without being questioned, asked their names, or read their rights. 2 were released shortly after and charged with assault. The young man is being held in Lorain County Jail, charged with robbery. No bail until his arraignment this Friday 8:30 AM, 65 S Main.

A second statement was

A Black student was chased and assaulted at Gibson’s after being accused of stealing. Several other students, attempting to prevent the assaulted student from receiving further injury, were arrested and held by the Oberlin Police Department. In the midst of all this, Gibson’s employees were never detained and were given preferential treatment by police officers. Gibson’s has a history of racial profiling and discriminatory treatment of students and residents alike

These are incredibly unlike just "saying racist" because they contain the specific allegation of assault. One contains a specific allegation of choking. The other contains a specific allegation of injury to the student.

You can even read the appeals court decision. https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2022/2022-Ohio-1079.pdf Where they say:

This Court must emphasize, however, that Oberlin was granted summary judgment on the Gibsons’ claims based on the verbal protests by Oberlin students. The trial court agreed that the student chants and verbal protests about the Gibsons being racists were protected by the First Amendment and, therefore, were not actionable in this case. By the time of trial, the Gibsons’ libel claim focused solely on whether Oberlin had disseminated false, written statements of fact that caused the Gibsons significant harm.

So, as you can see. It took me about 5 minutes of investigation to show how silly the comparison to the Gibson's case this is. I even reviewed Oberlin's MSJ https://www.oberlin.edu/sites/default/files/content/office/general-counsel/current-issues/defendant_oberlin_colleges_motion_for_summary_judgment.pdf

It is, indeed, much different from the MSJ in the present case.

I agree that Oberlin's statements are even more damning in context, but as you saw in the court decision each claim was evaluated in isolation. The "long history" claim was found to be defamatory on its own (¶33), without including the specific allegation of assault (which was dealt with separately in ¶34, with the claim about the owner dealt with separately again in ¶35). Your argument that the comparison is unwarranted because Oberlin's statement contained specific allegations of assault/choking is demonstrably not true. Setting that disagreement aside, do you, personally, believe that Oberlin claiming the bakery had a "long account of racial profiling and discrimination" on its own should count as an actionable statement of fact for purposes of defamation? Yes or no?

It is, indeed, much different from the MSJ in the present case.

Certainly, and the circumstances are very different too. For one, that was the defendant's MSJ. Plaintiff MSJs for defamation are virtually unheard of, because defamation is so fact-dependent and MSJ require there to be virtually no disagreement on the facts.

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