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 -
Jones Alleged the document demand of him had never existed because no such document had ever be made.
But because a single judge made 1 determination about 1 document that may or may not have even been a document, he was denied all due process, and appeals.
Do you have a guess how many depositions Jones sat for and for how many hours? Do you have a guess how many depositions and how many hours Infowars employees sat for?
or it turns out the vast majority of people opining on this subject don't have a clue what they're talking about
because a party who has gone along with 99% of court demands and a party which has gone along with 0 (for e.g., refusing process itself) are different and justify different sanctions because sanctions are required to be narrowly tailored and not excessive
yes
Jones has turned over more discovery than any similar case I'm aware of by quite a margin. Given the sheer breadth of granted discovery requests, orders, and depo orders (more than any similar case I've ever seen) and the sheer breadth of turned over material given that context, it really puts into context the statement "Jones has a history of failing to comply with discovery orders in a timely manner."
Uh, no. Jones and his employees have turned over more documents and sat for more depositions than any similar case I've heard of. He has a long history of cooperating with and turning over large amounts of documents in response to the absurd levels of granted discovery in this case.
no
when a judge requires you sit for yet another ~24 hours of depositions and ignores doctor's notes of illness demanding you show up and you don't, that would run afoul of the phrasing of your question
but then so what?
when a judge requires you turn over a document you claim not only do you not have but never existed in the first place and you fail to deliver said document, it's dishonest to simply assert "party has a history of failing to comply with discovery orders"
you realize the court docket has answers, replies, transcripts from hearings, and motions from the defendant to all of this?
no
which is why you couldn't be bothered to answer my basic questions nor my argument about why they matter in the first place
instead you want to sit as a lazy arbiter where your ignorant opinions are the default and I must overcome some sufficient level of approved "source" citations over "facts" which wouldn't significantly change your opinion anyway which you've already argued
which is funny given my factual claims are all supported in the court docket from which you allegedly found the document you're linking to me containing the opinions and characterizations of a joke of a biased, activist judge who turned her courtroom into a "documentary" studio
additionally, linking some judge's opinion and characterization isn't a "citation" of the truth of those things, it's an opinion similar to yours
and no, I won't do any of that and since that's what you're here for I'll end this here as example #141213123 of why one-sided "citations!" demands are such loathsome (internet) "arguments"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link