site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33066 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 24, 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.

11
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is my theory - that as part of the settlement the hosts have to get permission from lawyers to run stories on certain topics, and that TC doesn't find this acceptable or was denied permission on what he thinks is a legitimately important story.

Reading about Napoleon one starts to wonder why anyone bothered following him after the second or third time he abandoned his troops. I get the same feeling from Trump. Everyone who goes to bat for him ends up getting smashed. His lawyers are lucky if they only get disbarred.

Right wing media has to be terrified that Trump wins the nomination. They’ll be put in the position of either endorsing whatever bullshit Trump comes up with next and risking a lawsuit, or losing their audience.

I don’t understand the defamation risk with Epps. What is his argument? Yes, I did incite J6 and then lied under oath; I didn’t do it as a plant and therefore I’ve been defamed. I’m not a fed; I’m a criminal seems like…an interesting argument.

You seemed to have stolen a base or two. There are no “knowing false system of facts.” For all we known, Epps is a fed and there are many curious things about Epps. The idea that is lying (let along wanton lying) is absurd. That is, it is a tough argument to satisfy actual malice.

And like mentioned, the idea that you defame someone by saying they are a criminal instead of a law abiding fed seems like a crazy argument for defamation generally.

  1. That assumes Epps isn’t a fed or fed informant. Something the FBI hasn’t been willing to say under oath.

  2. Regardless of the truth of the matter, there is a lot of oddness related to Epps. Maybe it’s all a coincidence but there is enough smoke there that it isn’t absurd to (1) believe there is more than meets the eye and (2) not accept Epps claim to the contrary.

If all you need for libel is that the Facts are X, a reasonable person could think it is not X, but it turns out they were mistaken then the media will go out of business.

Now maybe you think it is patently absurd to think Epps is a fed. That seems silly especially given what we already know (feds infiltrate these right wing protests all of the time, police presence did egg on protestors at this event, Epps was curiously dropped from the most wanted despite considerable video evidence of him actively and imminently furthering the whole thing, Epps lied to the Jan 6 committee and they didn’t say boo, Epps has been turned into a martyr by the same people who claim people like Epps are insurrectionists). If it isn’t just beyond the realm of possibility and there was no actual knowledge it is untrue, then Fox is in the clear for the actual malice standard.

It depends. If they say “look we don’t know it’s true, but he is threatening to sue us so knock it off” that seems fine. It gets dicier if they say “we think it’s untrue so knock it off.”

But even then, the problem with Dominion settlement is that it suggests there is no editorial independence. That is, if the bosses think X then they have a duty to prohibit pundit from saying not X. That strikes me as problematic but seemingly the standard most are adopting post dominion law suit.

More comments

As for knowing, the fact that Epps and his lawyers and the government have been telling Fox he wasn't a fed is pretty compelling, unless Fox is going to try to go to war on a "they're all lying, including under oath" defense, which I doubt they would and would almost certainly fail if they did.

Didn't Epps testify that he wasn't doing things that he is apparently on videotape doing? It seems like there is some valid argument that he has been lying.

Why would a fed at the Jan 6 rally be suggesting people cross state lines to procure weapons/explosives? Your reply makes no sense in this context.

More comments

He specifically encouraged people to go into the Capitol which is the equivalent of crossing state lines.

More comments

Yeah. He has already lied under oath. Moreover, alleging that someone is undercover and the person claiming “I’m not undercover” is far from proof they are in fact not undercover.

I doubt that any settlement with Dominion would constrain Fox's editorial decisions beyond running stories about Dominion itself (and probably not even then), and I'd find it hard to believe that Carlson has any interest on running such stories.

My theory is that this is more of a blanket requirement for all "controversial" stories to avoid any future lawsuits.

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