site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 25, 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.

7
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Trump relied on the testimony of the most relevant possible expert, a powerbroker in Palm Beach whose last deal involved Tommy Hilfiger’s property and who represented in one of the largest sales in recent Palm Beach history. He listed the specific features which, in his expert testimony, would lead the property to be sold at north of one billion dollars, namely that is an “exclusive family compound” and “in the most desirable section of Palm Beach”.

You are misinterpreting his statement as being conclusory. Why? The expert's ultimate assertion is not “speculative”, it is based on his experience and assessment of the features of the property. It is not “unsupported by any evidentiary foundation”, he specifies the exact evidentiary foundation.

No, it was the court that said it was conclusory, not me. And, are you sure you are familiar with the law on what constitutes a conclusory expert opinion under Florida law? Because the fact that you consider the identity of the expert relevant to that question suggests that you might not be.

Most importantly, note that the issue now is precisely that: Was the expert's opinion sufficiently nonconclusory to be entitled to weight under Florida law? I would think you would be sufficiently uncertain of the answer thereto to be a little less sure that the decision must be the product of corruption or incompetence.

If any such statement was made in evidence a MSJ is improper because that creates a legitimate question of material fact. The judge is in a tails he loses heads trump wins situation if ever a nonbiased person reviews his order.

If any what statement is made? Do you mean that, if the expert's opinion was supported by evidence, rather than being wholly conclusory? Yes, if so, the court erred in disregarding the opinion. However:

  1. Is there any reason to think that is true?
  2. That does not mean the summary judgment was improper unless the other undisputed facts re the other properties are insufficient to support the summary judgment, which seems unlikely, since there were several others properties, the values of which seem to have been misrepresented.

Even if its 99.99% conclusion and only supported with threadbare facts, the MSJ would lose. A MSJ is where you win even when you accept the other side's facts.

  1. As I said, "Do you mean that, if the expert's opinion was supported by evidence, rather than being wholly conclusory? Yes, if so, the court erred in disregarding the opinion."

  2. However, as I noted, since the decision was based on misrepresentations re several properties, not just Mar A Lago, the mere fact that the affidavit was supported by threadbare facts does not mean that the motion for summary judgment should have been denied, let alone that only a corrupt or stupid judge would have granted it.