site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7mo ago (text post)   26370 thread views

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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

On the Palm Beach property I’m knowledgeable to yes the result is corruption or ignorance or just trying to give the redditors a partisan talking point. There isn’t even plausible deniability here.

Even if Trump can’t subdivide it’s certainly worth more than sfh with 2 ocean front acres which are trading 200 million plus. The family buying that plot would buy Mar for 200 and just have 15 extra acres.

You might not be able to get the full value of 20 acres which is probably over a billion but it’s certainly worth more than the highest sfh in the neighborhood which gives a lower bound of probably 250 million.

Another user said he bought it for $12 million. That was in 1985. Per the West Palm Beach home price index the value in 2021 would be expected to be about $57 million. Yet he claimed it was worth more than $600 million at the time. A judge who infers therefrom that he was lying is not acting unreasonably. Even if he turns out to be mistaken.

just trying to give the redditors a partisan talking point

So, you think the judge ruled as he did in order to give the redditors a partisan talking point??

Another user said he bought it for $12 million. That was in 1985.

Per this article, he bought it for $5 million.

That’s not Palm Beach especially the good area or waterfront of which there is very limited supply.

Yes I do believe the judge did this for Reddit talking points.

That’s not Palm Beach especially the good area or waterfront of which there is very limited supply.

And it would have been very easy for Trump, et al, to look at property records in the area and show that prices indeed increased fifty-fold from 1985 to 2021. Did they do so? There is no evidence of that. And if they didn't, then what is the basis for claiming that the court decision is meritless?

Yes I do believe the judge did this for Reddit talking points.

Thank you. That is very valuable information.

He did do that he presented expert testimony for higher valuations

According to the decision, he did not, because the expert opinion did not include any facts. As the court said, under established law, "Where the expert's ultimate assertions are speculative or unsupported by any evidentiary foundation, however, the opinion should be given no probative force and is insufficient to withstand summary judgment." Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542 (2002). Had the expert said something like, "I reviewed sales records for nearby properties since 1985 and found that they had appreciated an average of 50x, so I estimate that Mar A Lago was worth Y dollars at the time in question, then there would be cause for complaint. Did he say that, or anything similar?

It’s past my legal ability but for market value purposes a top broker in the market would seem to be a reasonable expert witness.

That being said (and I’ve edited my top post) I wouldn’t quote this judges reasoning. He’s made shit up before and been reversed.

Here’s a quote:

“He said, “You can’t just do this because the zoning allows it. I just can’t believe this is the case.”

Alas for Engoron, it was the case — so the higher court reversed him. “

So in the past he’s admitted a developer was doing something “legal” and ruled against him anyway.

https://nypost.com/2023/09/27/mar-a-lago-judges-developer-hating-past-is-a-big-win-for-donald-trump/

The $25 million figure isn’t even used in the prosecutors brief. They use better arguments some of which may be correct (I think trump may have been overvaluing 50%).

a top broker in the market would seem to be a reasonable expert witness.

Of course he is an expert. No one has said otherwise. The point is that an expert's opinion must be based on evidence. As another court put it, "Like a house built on sand, the expert's opinion is no better than the facts on which it is based." Kennemur v. State of California, 133 Cal. App. 3d 907, 923 (1982)

The $25 million figure isn’t even used in the prosecutors brief.

  1. Do you have a link to the brief?
  2. That is not relevant, because the court did not hold that the property is worth $25 million. It held that is was not worth $600 million.

Here’s the filing. https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/tto_complaint.pdf

It’s page 110. But also on your (2) the judge specifically says “2300%” overvaluation. You are creating a motte and Bailey. I’ve repeatedly said I think Trumps figures look high to me. I’m not debating that. My point has consistently been the 25 is stupid.

Coming to a “hard” valuation on this property is nearly impossible. It has land use restrictions. It’s also the most prestigious property in arguably the most prestigious neighborhood in the USA. How much would a tech mega billionaire pay for it to have a family heirloom for their family? Could be anything. So I’m not sure you can do better than a local market expert because their are not comps for it.

Those homes don't have land use restrictions that they can only be used as social clubs.

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