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 -
I don't understand what you mean. First, if someone loses, then someone wins. Why the loser in this situation would be the underdog is not particularly clear to me. One would think that anything that makes it hard to sue, including statutes of limitations, would benefit the overdog, not the underdog, because the justice system is the only method that the underdog has to hold overdogs to account. Underdogs, by definition, don't have economic or political power.
Nor is it clear to me why you think that limiting the statute of limitations guarantees that the plaintiff will win. The plaintiff has the burden of proof, after all.
This isn't true on a practical level. You can have a lawsuit where both parties end up worse off, even if there's a winner in the sense "the lawyers get paid".
The justice system is a double edged sword and can be used to hurt the underdog as well as help. Ideally it would not, but we don't have an ideal one.
But that was clearly not what you were referring to.
No one said otherwise. Nevertheless, as noted, the overdog has many other weapons at his disposal, while the underdog has but one. Hence, rules making lawsuits more difficult to bring tend to harm the underdog more. That is particularly true re statutes of limitations, since overdogs are more likely to have access to, or ability to uncover, evidence of wrongdoing that forms the basis of the lawsuit, and are also more able to retain legal counsel.
It's exactly what I was referring to. If Trump had won the lawsuit, that's still a loss, just not as big a loss. His accuser loses too. Both sides lose.
That's true because you hedged it with the word "tend".
Rules that make it hard to bring lawsuits help underdogs who get sued. It doesn't matter how much money Trump has, having to bring evidence about what he did 30 years ago is not something he can use money for. It's fundamentally unfair to the person getting sued and is why we normally have statutes of limitations.
This is merely a claim that there are no rules that always help only one group. That goes without saying.
As I said, the overdog has many other weapons at his disposal, while the underdog has but one.
No one said otherwise.
Trump's the underdog here.
As I said previously, that seems to be a claim that that Trump was treated unjustly, or perhaps that the court was biased against Trump personally, but it is not evidence for OP's very different claim that underdogs can't win.
Trump's the underdog. He didn't win. And even "winning" would be losing here.
He didn't claim thar underdogs can't win, he claimed that the rules don't lead to underdogs winning.
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