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 correct, but I found the response somewhat ambiguous (is @anti_dan committing to changing their mind if such a case exists? or are they just reiterating why their opinion is correct?) so I was seeking some precision.
Yes, I'm willing to change my mind if there's a high profile left wing media company that loses a court battle for defamation over speculation and arguably political opinion relating to a very high profile political campaign issue.
Thank you. Would you agree to substitute "speculation and arguably political opinion" with "comparable behavior"? The reason being is that defamation does not apply to speculation and opinion, so by using those descriptors you're begging the question by claiming that Fox is already by definition the victim of a frivolous lawsuit.
If you want to maintain that Fox's behavior is indeed just "speculation and arguably political opinion", it would be helpful for you to be more specific. Here's the 194-page motion for summary judgment that Dominion filed. Of the statements Dominion claims are defamatory (and there are many) can you cite any examples that you'd dispute would be defamatory (either because it's opinion or for some other reason)?
This is an overly long MSJ, which instantly makes me suspicious. Particularly because the first section is a 45 page political screed.
Here is the first claimed defamatory statement, thus it should be the best one:
Bartiromo here is clearly engaging in a vague setup. She uses the non-word "irregularities" which is basically like saying "racism". They guest then states a wildly speculative position that contains a mixture of facts and opinion. This is common on all cable news interviews. None of this passes muster.
I am seeing a focus on the part of Dominion to use the word "narrative" quite often in here, for example they state Fox promoted the following 4 false narratives.
2020 Presidential Election ( the algorithm lie) . ( 3 ) Dominion is owned by a company founded in Venezuela to rig elections for the dictator Hugo Chavez ( the Venezuela lie) .
( 4 ) Dominion paid kickbacks to government officials who used its machines in the 2020 Presidential Election ( the kickbacks lie)
These are all just normal political opinion narratives that contain a mongrel of speculation and facts no different than any Russian collusion idea or Hunter laptop idea.
The next time a Fox host appears to be cited is with this:
Inaccurate is another classic political weasel word that cannot in normal circumstances be thought to be a specific factual allegation.
Skimming the remainder of the document, I find myself in a situation akin to the judge at the end of Billy Madison, "Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." Except for, I replace idiotic with "related to the law in any way".
I appreciate you took the time to dive into this. To help us both, we can reference as a template the standard utilized in the Gibson's Bakery defamation lawsuit that Oberlin University lost. Starting on page 11 of the appeal, you can see an example of how to determine whether a statement is factual, and an important factor is whether or not it's "verifiable". So something like "this painting is beautiful" is not verifiable, while "this painting was made by Bob" is.
I would agree with you that Baritomo's "irregularities" is too ambiguous to be a statement of fact.
Regarding Powell's statement:
If you believe this is too speculative to be considered a statement of fact, how would you edit the sentence to make it less speculative? I highlighted the pertinent clauses and I literally cannot contemplate how to make it any more of a statement of fact. Either fraud happened or did not. If the fraud happened, either it happened in the computer systems or not. Either Dominion flipped votes or not. Either they added votes or did not. Virtually everything she said is a statement of fact, and I don't know by what standard you're using to say otherwise.
Regarding Dobbs' example, I don't know how else to interpret the phrase "which were designed to be inaccurate" except to describe intent. Either the system was designed or it wasn't, and if it was designed either it was designed to be inaccurate or it wasn't. This is especially lucid considering it's in the context of Powell's theory that she's "identified mathematically the exact algorithm they used and planned to use from the beginning to modify the votes in this case to make sure Biden won"
Your last paragraph is what we in the business call conclusory. You're just making a claim without explaining its basis. I don't know your expertise with defamation law, but if you can confidently assert that the MSJ is not "related to the law in any way" I would assume you can show your work easily. Quoting a 90s comedy unfortunately doesn't count.
You'd eliminate the or statement. It would be flipping votes. OR its would be adding votes. It would include a method and place. For example, "That is where the fraud took place, where they were flipping votes in the computer system in Maricopa County using a DNC backdoor."
No, you shouldn't assume that. It is about reading a nearly 200 page document that, if actually focused on the law, would be a 40 page document (or less to be honest), introduces itself with irrelevant statements made by Fox hosts out of context, does not contain a concise section that lists the alleged defamatory statements (instead they are scattered throughout the document), etc etc. It looks like a political document masquerading like a legal document.
Ok that does indeed make it more factual by mitigating some ambiguity. But if so, you're presenting an extremely high standard for defamation, one I don't believe is reflected in any jurisdiction. For example, the statement from the Gibson's Bakery (linked above) that it had a "long account of racial profiling and discrimination" is similar to what you described as:
The court in that case found that it was a statement of fact. If you were to apply the standard you outlined in a consistent manner, you would disagree with that part of the Oberlin decision. Am I incorrect?
I'm assuming that you could only come to this conclusion if you've read multiple defamation motions summary judgment in order to get a sense of what the landscape looks like. If so, can you link to a MSJ that you believe meets your standards?
Defamation, no. You see, almost no cases proceed to that in defamation because they get anti-SLAPPed out of court. But this does not look like a MSJ in any of the other types of cases I've seen or written.
This is true, it's generally very difficult to win a defamation case but then again few cases have the treasure trove of evidence that Dominion got a hold of.
Do you agree that Oberlin should not have been found liable for defamation based on the statement I highlighted? Like you mentioned, it's like "racism".
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link