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 -
Of course the rules are made up—in legislative sessions, where the democratically elected representatives decided this statute-of-limitations business was unjust. How else do you want a change to happen? It is the job of the courts to enact the laws as they stand, not as they once stood.
It’s funny that you phrase it like that when talking about a defamation suit, where Carroll applied due process to keep her reputation from being smeared and ruined. And that your example for an “underdog” is a billionaire, celebrity, and politician with millions of loyal followers.
Let’s imagine a hypothetical with no civil suits. Trump assaults Carroll in 198X. Carroll, for whatever reason, lets the SOl run out. She later decides to write a tell-all book. Trump can’t sue her, so he just uses his immense popularity, personal social media platform, etc. to ruin her reputation across America. End result: victims are incentivized to shut the fuck up about anything which didn’t make it to a court of law, even if it really did happen.
Civil suits make Trump’s counterattack a liability. They also make Carroll’s claim a liability, discouraging her from falsifiable or malicious statements! This seems like an obvious improvement over the case where the most popular guy gets to shit on whoever he wants by default.
“Get thee behind me, fedposter.”
Is it Carroll vs Trump, or is it Trump vs Blue Tribe?
The impact of all of these are relative. Billionaire is a lot relative to me, and very little compared to state and quasi-state entities with GDP measured in the trillions. Politician is very influential relative to me, and laughable compared to big business, big media, the federal bureaucracy, and half the country. Millions of loyal followers is a lot compared to me, and very little relative to the dozens of millions within Blue Tribe as a whole.
You want to appeal to the process, because that keeps things clean. But Trump's supporters emphatically do not trust the process, and do not agree that it is being applied impartially. Every time the "process" reveals a novel convolution to the detriment of their interests, their trust decreases further, as it should.
It seems likely that Blue Tribe will get Trump eventually. If this doesn't do it, they'll roll the dice on something else, and something else after that, and so on until the day he dies. All it costs them is the trust of an increasingly furious and desperate other half of the country.
Funny, that's exactly how I'd describe the current situation. Making this claim requires very specific assumptions about the framing, which are not shared. Because those assumptions are shared by 90% of media workers, academics and government staff, they gain a veneer of legitimacy through repetition, but that does not make them legitimate.
Yes, I am making assumptions. So are Trump’s defenders. I think mine are better-founded.
It is absolutely Carroll v. Trump. Strip away all the political theatrics and you’d still have a valid case. Two if you count defamation. And I’ve laid out my reasons why I believe defamation laws, and civil suits in general, are useful.
The fact that 90% of Democrats line up against Trump does not make the underlying law illegitimate.
More options
Context Copy link
When we've got serious claims in this thread that anyone ought to be able to win a 30-year-old he said / she said sexual assault case against Trump because of his known bad character, I think the answer is obvious.
And of course conservatives might dismiss this sort of thing with "well then you shouldn't have had such bad character".
Link? If you’re thinking of me, I sure wouldn’t sign on to that.
https://www.themotte.org/post/483/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/97645?context=8#context
Close enough, I guess.
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
The simple answer is a higher standard of proof for a 198x rape claim than 51%. And perhaps a civil suit testimony can’t be used for a criminal perjury charge. Perhaps Trump is a special case but he’s been investigated for 6 years even before he was POTUS. Testifying under oath does represent a huge risks to him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link