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 -
That's what trials are for. If you believe the court was in error in finding Alex Jones responsible, I'd like to know why you think that, and if it is based on actually examining the arguments heard and their reasoning, or if your objection is based purely on the principals (not principles) involved.
The Alex Jones verdict did not establish that anyone with a media following who says mean things about someone is responsible for any harassment that person receives, and I don't think you actually believe that's what happened here.
There was no trial. Nobody decided either
Whether Jones's followers were in fact responsible OR
Whether, even if they were, that their actions (which would not have been legal even if Jones's claims were true) were a novus actus intervienien breaking the chain of liability.
Jones was found liable on a default judgement.
Well then, maybe he should have offered a defense?
If all this is purely academic, then I fail to see how it's establishing a precedent that silences dissent.
He was not allowed to offer a defense.
Because precedent can be established de facto (eventually becoming de jure) without the formal process. Essentially everyone in the legal system knows what happened to Alex Jones. So a talk show host asking his lawyer if his spicy commentary might get him into legal trouble is more likely to be told that indeed it could, and ruinously so. Someone who said something being sued for the actions of a third party who might previously have been told by his lawyer "that jerk has no case, we can get a summary dismissal" will now hear "Well, maybe you'd better settle". Judges with case like this before them will be less likely to summarily dismiss them, because they know about Alex Jones. Thus leading to more settlements. And after a while when it becomes standard to avoid this liability and/or settle, maybe someone decides to fight it out... and because everyone else in the same position has been settling, the judges and lawyers all assume there's solid precedent against them so they lose, making the rule de jure.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link