site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   23862 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 10, 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 Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

And even if he hadn't, why isn't the level of damage caused to the plaintiffs part of equation to lower the number?

It is. Generally civil trial damages are divided into compensatory and punitive components. One to compensate plaintiffs for the harm caused by the defendant. One to punish the defendant for the bad thing they did. According to the Wikipedia article most of the damages against Jones ($965M) were compensatory.

First, from what I understand, the final payment number came from Alex Jones not being willing to disclose his net worth, which allowed to the plaintiffs to imagine an infinite net worth if they wanted to. But once the books are finally displayed, does that make sense?

Why doesn't it? If you harm someone to the tune of $1M (say) it seems like justice requires you owe them $1M. Maybe they can't collect because you don't have the money but I don't see why we should pre-emptively do some injustice to the wronged party.

Isn't this institutionalized debt slavery as punishment for what is at the end of the day an civil case?

Yea, but so? If you fuck up other people's lives bad enough in a wrongful way your life might get fucked up in return. Seems fine. What's the alternative proposition? Should it be impossible for a court to order someone pay a judgemental beyond their means, no matter how bad the conduct is if it isn't criminal? That seems highly exploitable.

There is no world where there was almost a billion dollars in actual damages.

Why isn’t this an eighth amendment violation?

Think of it as the state’s interest in keeping people from being jackasses at trial.

The guy has been very consistent about 1) not cooperating, 2) not apologizing, and 3) continuing his business model. He keeps trying to make money off of slandering the people who have power over him. So he keeps racking up more punitive damages.

Does he? Ive heard him apologize for example on Joe Rogan. What also is wrong with Jones’ business model. It is part entertainment part conspiracy theorist. Both of those things are legal. He even sometimes is right!

Who is he slandering that has power over him?

You’re right, he occasionally apologizes. Or is forced into admissions/retractions. Or just claims he was psychotic.

For slandering—in the casual sense—I’m thinking of his statements about Heslin. Or about the cases in general. It’s probably legal, but mocking your jury and insisting they’re trying to “scare us away” is, in fact, a bad move.

I've heard him say he "got that one wrong" or something to that effect -- which to me implies that he no longer believes what he originally said. It was well before the lawsuit got rolling, and he did seem sincere.

Most of his business model looks very little like the S.H. stuff -- it's more like pro wrestling than anything else. And AFAIK this is the first time he's been sued?

Your three points seem mostly false; are you basing your opinion of Jones on something else? It's OK to just not like the guy, but a billion bucks seems a bit of a large penalty for that. He's not even very partisan; (again as I recall) he is pretty hard on GWB?

I’m going to stand by points 1 and 3, actually.

Failing to comply with discovery, shuffling the shell companies, still not paying the victims—those are all “not cooperating.” The more he does those things, the more penalties stack up, above and beyond the initial damages. And all the while he’s making money off the same kind of statements, except directed at the judge, jury, witnesses, anyone who isn’t on his side.

Is it unreasonable to look at these behaviors and think, hmm, that man doesn’t feel a shred of remorse?

As an aside—he was previously threatened with a lawsuit over Pizzagate, leading to a retraction. He settled another suit over the Charlottesville car video, as well as one for criticizing…uh…a yogurt company? These were all filed before any of the Sandy Hook suits, but hey, maybe they just smelled blood in the water.

Point is, he’s offended some people, and now he keeps offending them, even when they’re actively deliberating on his punishment. That’s bad strategy.

Failing to comply with discovery, shuffling the shell companies, still not paying the victims—those are all “not cooperating.” The more he does those things, the more penalties stack up, above and beyond the initial damages.

Those all seem pretty standard for litigants who are both naive and combative -- it does not 'stack up' to a billion dollars.

And all the while he’s making money off the same kind of statements, except directed at the judge, jury, witnesses, anyone who isn’t on his side.

He's claiming that the court is made up of crisis actors? I must confess I'm not really a watcher; what kind of things does he say? If it's stuff like 'this is a sham court designed to shut me up instead of seeking a just resolution' -- not only does that seeem like central 1A stuff, he's probably correct?

Is it unreasonable to look at these behaviors and think, hmm, that man doesn’t feel a shred of remorse?

Either that or he's upset about being targeted for destruction?

Point is, he’s offended some people, and now he keeps offending them, even when they’re actively deliberating on his punishment. That’s bad strategy.

He... does not seem like a really strategic guy? Again, I don't see how we get from 'Jones says crazy stuff and is bad at dealing with the legal system' to 'it's totally fair that he's on the hook for a billion dollars'.

Fine. In your expert opinion, how much should he owe for punitive damages?

The law is clear that punitive damages are allowed. The legal system, from judges to jurors, has concluded that he should pay various eye-watering sums. If you think this is so unjust, where would you set the bar?

More comments

Lessons in attempting to value things in the absence of an active market. What is the exchange rate between units of emotional distress and dollars? What even are the units of emotional distress?

I don’t know (which is one reason I’m skeptical of IIED torts) but it isn’t a billion dollars.

As far as I know there is no SCOTUS precedent capping compensatory damages in a civil case. I think partly this is for reasons I identify in my comment and partly because compensatory damages aren't supposed to be a "punishment" as such. There are, by contrast, SCOTUS cases that limit how much a jury can award in punitive damages.

Sure. I’m saying the compensatory damages are actually punitive damages in disguise because of course they are.

I agree that what he did is harassment but at a certain point a kind of vague gesturing to emotional damages for uncapped punishment has to look contrary to how the people who'd be comfortable with that level of punishment treat actual violent criminals.

I am not sure I agree. Criminal punishment penalties are categorically different (jail) than civil penalties. The worst that happens to Jones is he declares bankruptcy and pays pennies on the dollar of what he owes. There is not really a get-out-of-going-to-jail equivalent.

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