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 -
Agree. It's hard to overstate just how extreme this can extend, even in a totally non-sexual context.
I once had an HR interview as a bystander to an incident between two other colleagues. It look me 15 minutes of variations on "wait, what are you talking about?" to the HR rep to realize what I had seen as an forgettable, minor disagreement between the two was reported as "verbal assault and harassment" by one party.
And that reporting party was a Dude.
This is why physical evidence standards, documented intent, provable patterns of behavior etc. are so important in any cases wherein emotional salience is so high. I think in both of these cases, a whole lot of that is lacking.
@FiveHourMarathon is objectively correct in stating that the award and verdict is an own-goal on the part of Trump. The compensatory vs punitive damage awards clearly indicate that the bulk of the $83 mm is to convince Trump that he should really quit talkin' shit about Carroll.
If the accusation is false, just shut up, fork over the dough, and take the lumps? I wouldn't be inclined to do that myself were I accused of a serious crime. But this is getting outside the limits I want to impose on the question, which is just: is the account as given credible?
I'll discount Rashomon as too much nuance and take it that, without supporting evidence, your view is neither claim is good enough to stand up on its own?
More options
Context Copy link
It's clearly political.
How so?
I’d have expected loud, grating defamation to be very unpopular with a jury whether or not politics was involved. It pattern-matches to an “above the law” stereotype that Americans really, really don’t like.
Carroll didn't surface her claims until after Trump was president, for a book she was writing. She accused other men but sued Trump.
The case would not have progressed if not for New York State passing a new law to extend the statute of limitations in cases of rape. It was understood that this would allow Carroll to sue Trump over her claims.
Her lawsuit has been funded by Reid Hoffman, the same billionaire donor who (until recently) was funding Nikki Haley's campaign.
The judge was prejudiced against Trump from the start. The evidence his lawyer tried to admit was not allowed. Trump was largely prevented from speaking, on the grounds that the fact that he violated Carroll had already been established, so he could say nothing in his own defense. What little Trump did say the judge instructed jurors to ignore, except for his yesses and nos. The judge then instructed jurors to remember that they had the power to punish Trump with punitive damages. Maybe it's possible a New York jury decided to interpret these instructions in a totally apolitical way? I severely doubt it.
Trump's "defamation" was calling Carroll a liar who made up her claim to sell books. She demonstrably lied in several instances (the judge instructed the jury to ignore all such evidence every time it came up). Several of the remarks, in fact, were made by Trump before the statute of limitations was changed so Carroll could evensue him for rape.
The whole thing is political, from front to end. There is nothing ordinary about this case. The jury judges and accuser deserve no benefit of the doubt. That Trump has been declared guilty is obviously, facially, against a plain reading of the facts. The most obvious explanation is that it is political.
How is any of this evidence of the judge being prejudiced?
Surely you recognise that it is absolutely routine for judges to make rulings on what things can and can't be used as evidence in a case? If you want to claim the judge did something wrong here you'll need to argue he applied the rules of evidence incorrectly or something.
Yes, and this is entirely appropriate. They already had a whole other trial to determine if he sexually assaulted her, and it found that he did. This was a defamation trial over whether or not he defamed her, and if so, over how much he owed her in damages. The judge ensured that the jury only considered evidence relevant to the case before them.
Should he have not informed the jury of what they could and could not do??
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But here you're continuing to support the double standard. Carroll can claim Trump raped her all she wants and nothing should come of it, but if Trump calls her a liar, he's liable for defamation over and over again.
Trump could absolutely have chosen to sue her for defamation for her claim. There is no legal double standard in that, beyond claims of "the rules don't matter."
Trump can also call her a liar without committing defamation, he has repeatedly chosen not to. The framework for the non-apology apology is so well known at this point that it's practically available as a template on EForms next to promissory notes and ground leases.
That he's failed to do so is a matter of temperament.
He did. His claim got thrown out.
Do you have a link to that anywhere? I wasn't aware he had tried, I can't find that noted in the articles I'm looking at (though obviously it is possible it was left out intentionally).
It gets mentioned occasionally. Here.
Thanks! Very helpful.
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
I'll meet you half way.
I think you're right in that there does appear to be a double standard on Carroll's allegations (which a jury denied) and Trump's ability to say whatever he wants (at whatever volume he wants) about it. I'm not an expert enough in defamation to say where the line is.
But I still stand by my "own-goal" analogy because either a lot or all of this (past the first jury trial, to be specific) could've been avoided if Trump just STFUs and relies on milquetoast cliches - "The justice system functioned and I abide by the verdict." He keep creating new opportunities for potential attacks. The fact that these attacks are/may be politically motivated is irrelevant because (a) He keeps creating the opportunities and (b) It is impossible for him not to know how much certain groups have made it their existential purpose to hunt him through the courts. When you mix egotism with a martyrdom complex, you get a lot of frivolous legal activity.
To refer back to the One True Gospel, The Wire;
"Keep it boring, String, keep it real fuckin' boring" - Prop Joe
And, from the Prophet Lil Wayne;
"Real G's move in silence like lasagna"
Yes, Trump can avoid anything more if he just capitulates -- shuts up and allows Carroll to accuse him all she wants without answer. That is indeed how the justice system "functioned". The problem is the justice system got utterly broken.
Without answer, except for getting to make an actual defense in court? Twice?
His personal brand demanded that he make a spectacular, performative stink about the issue, rather than issuing a press release and letting the lawyers sort it out. The jury decided that was the wrong choice.
I don’t see the problem with assigning a monetary incentive not to be maximally inflammatory.
2024, The fallacious ad hominem known as tone policing becomes law.
Always has been.
No, really. “Obscenity” is a bad enough category as it is. “Fighting words” is another. We ask judges and juries to assess the tone of speech all the time, which is part of the reason “actual malice” shows up in libel laws.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, but that's a general brokenness to the justice system, and Trump's increasingly large legal wounds are mostly a result of him refusing to stop walking on the broken glass even when he could just step around it and only be a bit inconvenienced, not the system being biased against him.
This is not a general brokenness to the justice system. Finding someone guilty for defamation for claiming as false an accusation of rape made against them many years after the time of the alleged event, without furthr evidence, is a specific brokenness for this case.
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