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 -
This is not arguing against "banana republic kangaroo court BS" -- rather the opposite, in fact.
But it only has higher risks because hot culture war listeners are excitable and the insane drivel he was spewing caused them to hurt people. That doesn't strike me as kangaroo court BS, but rather rule of law trying to enforce a modicum of reasonable behavior. Stated differently, if you want to try to wield that kind of power you need to be more responsible.
He was slandering these completely innocent private citizens at a minimum.
What's on the other side of this argument? We should live in a world where people can blast completely wrong and malicious information about you on a top 50 podcast and the law is powerless to stop them? You don't think that the punishment for that sort of behavior should be "example making"?
None of these claims were litigated.
We should live in a world where blue-checks who claim Kyle Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an AR-15 and killed three black people can be successfully sued for One Billion Dollars. Until then, yes, Alex Jones gets to blast completely wrong information too, and should only be held responsible for the actual harm (not that his statements shocked the conscience of the jury), and should in fact get to defend the case on the merits and not just go directly to the penalty phase.
Bad, but not the same thing?
Wasn't this Rittenhouse claim debatable enough that it had to be factually settled in a court, though? The state prosecutor argued exactly the same thing as the blue checks.
OTOH, as far as I'm aware, the claims Jones made were clearly batshit crazy and would be thrown out instantly by a judge if he ever tried to introduce them in court.
Worse. Jones never accused anyone of a serious crime, nor does he have the reach or credibility of mainstream journalists.
No. That Rittenhouse killed two people, not three, was never in dispute. That neither of those people were black was not in dispute. That he did not carry the gun across state lines was not in dispute; it wasn't clear earlier on but it was by the time many of the blue-check claims were made.
Being "batshit crazy" argues for either "not defamation" or "lower damages", not higher. Because they're less likely to be believed by third parties.
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