site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   20672 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 14, 2024

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 New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This case is so bad it’s the exact thing I talked about with ymeskhout about that what he was complaining about the right grifters can get away with anything because the vibes are institutional corruption. And this is worse it’s not some dude making a movie but a court of law in one of the richest states in the union.

No one else has ever been prosecuted for this. It’s like giving a guy a $400 million bill because he jaywalked.

Where do you get the idea that nobody has ever been prosecuted for this? A recent AP article suggests that there have been nearly 150 actions under the law since it was passed in 1956.

Did you read the article?

“AP’s review of nearly 150 reported cases since New York’s “repeated fraud” statute was passed in 1956 showed that nearly every previous time a company was taken away, victims and losses were key factors. Customers had lost money or bought defective products or never received services ordered, leaving them cheated and angry.“

A very key point “customers” so these were frauds targeting retail people where real losses occurred not institutional investors like banks especially ones who did not lose money.

Ignoring actual debating “fraud” as there is no other similar case that has ever been prosecuted under this statute which even the AP admits is true.

So yes this has never been done before.

They didn't take the company away; they levied a fine. It's a large fine, but dissolving the company would have involved appointing a receiver and liquidating all of the company's assets.

There is no functional difference between taking a company and liquidating and just taking 450 million of their money as fine.

But I will repeat show me one similar case prosecuted this way. (They’ve never been prosecuted).

There are obviously many companies that could weather a $450m fine.

Is the reason this case so bad based on the fact that the charges have never been pursued before, or is there also an affirmative defense of the alleged fraud?

The gap between “never been pursued before” and this is the worst thing in the world and punishable by “350 million fine” is absurdly large.

Affirmative sure. There’s a great deal of estimation being done in these deals.

For the securities industry Elon Musks “420 tweet” is considered a bigger deal. Because it targets retail investors versus institutions.

We still have a lot of 2020-2021 market fraud that hasn’t been prosecuted. The whole AMC/GME pump and dump violated a ton of securities law and lost retail investors a lot of money.

Are you claiming that he didn't do anything illegal, or that these laws are rarely enforced?

Because, yeah, I agree that rich people in the US get to break the law all teh time with very little chance of consequences. I don't think that's good, and I don't have a lot of sympathy for the one rich lawbreaker they decide to make an example of.

[disclaimer: I'm not familiar with the merits]

If they're going to make an example of someone, it would be significantly more effective of an example if it can't just be passed off as a political prosecution, as then people would worry it could happen to them and reform their behavior, rather than just make themselves politically unobtrusive.

I agree that it does less to discourage criminals than prosecuting someone solely for being a criminal would.

However, it probably much more effectively discourages criminals from entering politics, which is a good thing.

It probably much more effectively discourages criminals from entering politics on the wrong side, which isn’t quite the same thing.

Are you claiming that he didn't do anything illegal, or that these laws are rarely enforced?

Do we have examples of similar prosecutions for similar crimes?

The problem is you run into the conservative desire to believe in the institutions. There's no way the Democrats could have so blatantly used the court system to engage in political persecution of their opponents. The System wouldn't stand for such a thing. Since it did stand for it, Trump must therefore simply be guilty as his opponents claim, and damn the appearances otherwise.

Sarcasm?

Vantablack pilled

the smarter grifters keep it civil and then use asset protection to avoid having to pay anything . the line between civil and criminal is up to the DA to decide. it can be referred for criminal prosecution.

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