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 -
Are you suggesting that Trump is the first person to ever be found liable for fraud in New York? I'm willing to bet a large amount that's not true.
If you are going to keep making this claim you need to show another victimless fraud case that occurred that had zero pressure from an victim pushing for prosecution.
We can avoid discussing whether Trump did fraud. Just show me a victimless fraud case in NYC.
Here.
It's pretty rich to claim that that's "victimless", because if that is true, it would have undercut the justification for the case. That case is clearly premised on securities fraud harming either existing shareholders or shareholders who bought shares based on the fraudulent claims. Moreover, it is inconceivable that this had "zero pressure" from a victim (or at least a self-proclaimed victim), because lots of people think they're "victims" of climate change (and thus, any potentially fraudulent statements made about it). It's the foundation of the case, whether or not it is ultimately flawed, and that foundation is contrary to how you've portrayed it.
This is vastly better binned in the Matt Levine category of "Everything Is Securities Fraud". We know, it is baked in, that literally any conceivable case of securities fraud (literally "Everything", says Levine) will at least be attempted at some point. It's like Rule 34 for a particular statute.
But yeah, if you think that the Trump case is most akin to an area where everyone pretty much agrees that it's all just lawfare, grasping at every possible iteration of a theme, often specifically to pursue specific political goals (like climate change) rather than focusing on remedying fraud-as-traditionally-understood, then I think the point is actually made.
More options
Context Copy link
There is like 30 pdf in there. Explain relevance and how it applies.
You asked for
I provided it. If you don't want to read it, don't ask for it.
Generally providing a summary of the case etc are considered proper form.
Assuming you are providing an equivalent case that would mean it’s been used twice - once to target an oil company which is a blue tribe political enemy and once to target Donald Trump a blue tribe political enemy.
It's been used much more than twice - the law has been on the books since the 50s.
I picked this case specifically because it was so clearly politically motivated, because that made it easy to have confidence that it was not actually motivated by Exxon investors who felt victimised. If you want to shift the goalposts and ask for a non-political 63(12) case instead, I can find one of those.
It looks like it fits.
Msnbc host still saying it’s never happened before.
Regardless this would still fall under blatant lawfare. And I don’t see 600 million in damages.
You quoted shrek before but there was clear fraud there and investors did lose though I believe he made them while elsewhere.
And NY lost that case. So the charge was brought but the Judge acted properly.
I'm not sure what any of this is saying.
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