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 -
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