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 -
In this claim, the state of New York is filing an Executive Law 63(12) case against Trump, some Trump family members, and the Trump organizations. New York state law permits the attorney general to bring against businesses for a wide variety of reasons but essentially including any "repeated" fraudulent or illegal act, without needing the victims to be present (or, in some cases, for victims in the conventional sense to exist). Used to have a three-year statute of limitations, was bumped to six years recently.
This means that, while the case is about the alleged fraud and falsification, the state's authority to bring the case is not as a victim of the fraud, but as an authority to bring action against unlawful or fraudulent actors. This also makes it less important whether and to what extent any individual victim of the fraud was harmed: the sticker-shocking 250mil claim is about the benefits the Trump organization received, not specific to losses suffered by any bank.
The legal claims are summarized starting at page 205, and can be tl;dr'd as fraud, falsifying business records, issuing false financial statements, insurance fraud, and conspiracy to commit them. Some of them could be considered 'against' the state, in the sense that false business records have broad ramifications, but for the most part there are specific harmed parties (largely insurers or lenders) who are not parties to the suit.
This sort of claim doesn't require size as a statutory prong, and indeed the NYAG has used this approach in the past to go after some pretty small names or faults. See NYAG v. TempurPedic (alleged price-fixing), or NYAG v. Wegmans (cloud security/data privacy), or NYAG v. rando bus companies (city limits on vehicle idling?).
((I think there are due process concerns in this class of statute, given how often it's used as to achieve the sort of penalties that might otherwise fall under criminal law without the relevant evidentiary, burden of proof, or adequate defense standards, and because it's often used as a tool to make later criminal prosecutions, and the complaint does motion about referrals. But like the NYAG's highlighting of Trump's previous use of the Fifth Amendment for the purposes of adverse inference (technically still permitted under Baxter v. Palmigiano!), that's the sort of criticism that only has a lot of backers in very specific discussions and then gets ignored whenever a sufficiently unpopular target.))
More options
Context Copy link