site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 11, 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.

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I actually agree with you that Caroll doesn't seem credible. I have a strong suspicion that Trump would have won that case if he had a better lawyer and listened to their advice. The Serious Trouble podcast ran a demonstration of what a better cross examination might have sounded like and it was brutally effective at painting her as a fantasist. Unfortunately for Trump his lawyer did a terrible job.

I actually agree with you that Caroll doesn't seem credible. I have a strong suspicion that Trump would have won that case if he had a better lawyer and listened to their advice.

Okay, but with that opinion, the best you can muster is apparent bafflement that "somehow" his support increased anyways? Do you, as a human being, dislike people to a greater degree when you honestly think they were railroaded in court because they didn't have the top lawyers? I would assume that like most people, you would be sympathetic, and perhaps more likely to believe that they have been railroaded unjustly in other ways as well. I do not believe that you find this puzzling at all.

It's lacking evidence, is the trouble. Could it have happened? Sure. Did it happen? Who knows? Presumption of innocence should have quashed the case - if it weren't politically relevant.

Though I find it black humour sort of unintended consequences that, per Wikipedia, the Adult Survivors Act ended up with a lot of New York politicians and public services caught up in the trawl for "get yer prosecution in before the deadline":

Complaints against State of New York under the ASA were filed in the Court of Claims; as of November 17, 2023, 1,469 claims had been filed in the Court of Claims, mostly naming the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision as a defendant.

...New York City hospitals and health systems were named as defendants in at least 300 lawsuits filed under the ASA.

...In May 2023, an ex-employee of former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani sued him for alleged sexual battery.

...In November 2023, former Governor Andrew Cuomo was sued by his former executive assistant Brittany Commisso on the last day of the law's window. Commisso had previously filed a misdemeanor criminal complaint against Cuomo for forcible touching in 2021 but was later dismissed.

In November 2023, a former New York City employee sued Mayor Eric Adams, alleging that he sexually assaulted her in 1993, when he was a New York City Transit Police officer. Adams denied the allegation and said he did not recall meeting the accuser.

It's lacking evidence, is the trouble. Could it have happened? Sure. Did it happen? Who knows? Presumption of innocence should have quashed the case - if it weren't politically relevant.

More relevant I think is the fact that it was a civil trial so there was no presumption of innocence. The jury decided on the "balance of probabilities" standard rather than "beyond reasonable doubt".

It can be hard to get the best lawyers when that can be a career blackball for them.

And it really doesn't help when the client is notorious for both refusing to pay his lawyers and bad-mouthing them after they quit.

Also when you don't pay them.