Two points: First, in Musk's case there was a genuine issue of whether he was making a serious accusation of pedophilia, which would be defamatory, or just using the term "pedo guy" as a synonym for "creep," which is just general assholery and abuse. A jury could reasonably have come to either conclusion. I didn't pay enough attention to the evidence and had no way to judge general credibility, so I don't have an opinion on whether the jury got this right or wrong. It was their call, and it wasn't obviously wrong, though if I had sat through the trial I might have voted differently.
Second: For certain kinds of defamation cases it is necessary to show what are called "special damages," concrete, definable damages other than (or more likely, in addition to) hurt feelings, but taking the "pedo guy" statement as an accusation of pedophilia, no "special damages" are required. Emotional harm, or hurt feelings, is enough.
None of that is to deny that a jury presented with a plaintiff who could not show more than hurt feelings (for example, proof that a number of people took the accusation seriously and believed it) might be inclined to let a technically liable defendant skate. Indeed, I suspect that the lack of evidence of damage might have affected the jury's decision on whether "pedo guy" was a serious accusation or just abuse.
Warren-Booker has a geographic balance problem. So too Sanders-Booker. Biden-Booker would be even worse. He might fit well with Klobuchar or Mayor Pete.
This is good news. A bar association committee to which I belong is presenting a musical comedy roast of RBG on February 5, to an already sold-out house, which we had to reschedule from last year because of her earlier health issues. I have the juicy part of Judge/Justice Scalia, and I have been looking forward to performing in front of my former Civ. Pro. teacher.
The cost to CNN of defending this lawsuit, even successfully, would have been in the low seven figures. Unless and until we get useful information about how much CNN paid, all the theorizing about what the settlement "means" is just spitballing. Not that that will stop anybody.
This must be mis-formatted, because it obviously has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, whether Joe Sal is hard to understand "here," or whether he is hard to understand in general. Please put it where it belongs.
FWIW, I don't know if anyplace else has something like EPCOT, though Disney has theme parks outside the United States. EPCOT-like places seem perfectly anodyne to me, though my one trip there bored me to tears. What do you have against EPCOT?
I knew Harvey Weinstein in college -- he was a sleazebag back then -- and kept some track of him, but I knew nothing about the state of his health in recent years. Though a fat slob like that is very likely, at his age, to have problems. So I was "surprised" to see him with a walker, though only in the sense that, if asked about his health a week earlier, I would have had no basis to say anything. His using a walker wouldn't strike me as a ploy, even though I have a decades-old predisposition to think the worst of him. Doesn't mean it isn't a ploy, but as the doctors tell the medical students, "when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."
My pragmatic answer is that they can come here and think what they want, but they have to do what they're told on important matters that affect the rest of us until they become the dominant culture, or persuade us that their way is right and ours is wrong. Worship whatever imaginary friend you choose, eat what you like, and, within very broad limits, dress as funny as you please. No skin off my nose, and more bacon for me.
Joe's routine is a long-winded riff on the banal insight that people disagree about stuff, and have more room to disagree on matters of social fact or of value than of physical fact. The position is self-proving by the very existence of Joe Sal. Therefore, it doesn't tell us much. Being universally true, it is utterly useless in discussing specifics.
And yet, living in a real, if partially social, world in which things have to be resolved somehow, preferably by means other than brute force (though what is the social objectivity of this preference for avoiding brute force?), we do have to talk, give reasons for what we say, and see if we can come to an understanding. That can be hard. Much easier to wash everything, or at least everything you don't like, in a universal solvent.
If you want to take the opportunity presented by the recent attacks to talk about those things, preferably with someone who actually holds the position you're attacking, be my guest. Division of moral labor, and all that. I have zero interest in talking about talking rather than talking, period, but that's just me. I don't make any claim to pronounce on the proper topics of public discourse.
Adam Smith taught us long ago that the division of labor was a mighty force for economic progress. It would be perverse to criticize a person whose job is to sharpen the points of pins by saying that planting wheat is more important. Indeed, it is, but not everybody has to do everything all the time. We're better off dividing our labor.
I think the same insight applies to moral progress. The division of labor contributes there as well. Just this morning, I read an account of the Justice Department's strange decision to prosecute the Monsey stabber under 18 USC 247 rather than 18 USC 249. It did not include any condemnation of the stabber, or of anti-semitism in general. (The author, for what it is worth, is Jewish.) I do think it safe to assume, however, that he condemns both. But is that the best use of his time and talent, or are we better off if he does what he is good at and explains an issue most of the rest of us would not otherwise understand? The answer seems obvious to me.
Somebody out there is likely already to be putting a great deal of work into figuring out whether the Monsey stabber, who is clearly otherwise guilty of attempted murder and some federal hate crime, is crazy enough to have an insanity defense. I'd be surprised if that person's contribution to our understanding of the matter will include, or would be improved by including, denunciation of the obvious badness of what the Monsey stabber did, whatever his mental state.
Likewise, if some people take the opportunity afforded by these recent incidents to discuss the many flavors of anti-semitism, the differences between them, and, perhaps, the different strategies for dealing with them, which really is, unlike the Monsey stabbing itself, "complicated," I don't insist that they insert a paragraph condemning what no one supports. But then again, I don't see myself as the schoolmarm setting the bounds of public discussion.
There aren't any "citations and whatnot" that answer the question "What do you mean?" If you don't want to say what you mean in your own voice and stand, or stagger, behind it, there's no point in playing whatever your game is.
What is the "it" you keep referring to as "complicated"? And whatever "it" you mean, do you agree or disagree that that "it" is "complicated"? Or would you rather just posture without saying something definite enough to be held against you in the future?
Do you have a point? Of course people are talking about recent anti-Semitic attacks, and nobody needs social media to know that. The first thing you cite the is the New York Daily News, a newspaper, my hometown paper, which I read in hard copy every day. Is anyone worth takinga seriously saying that this latest attack is "complicated," or that it sheds much light on the actually complicated issue of the many different kinds of anti-semitism? No doubt some folks will jump on it in bad faith to try to, say, blame Trump, or liberals who don't like Likud, or who won't say anything bad about anyone black, or dismiss anyone who would rather talk about "complications" than the attack itself, but they don't deserve to be taken seriously
As it currently stands, the situation isn't particularly complicated. Some mentally-ill guy who was off his meds harbored crazy anti-semitic beliefs and acted on them. Was he anti-semitic because he's nuts or was he anti-semitic and nuts? I don't know yet, and neither does anyone else. Maybe we'll find out more. Maybe we won't. Maybe he's crazy enough to have an insanity defense to what otherwise looks like a straightforward hate crime prosecution; maybe he isn't. Don't know yet, but we'll probably find out soon.
But if the "situation" is not this crazy killer and why he did what he did, but some larger political point someone wants to make about anti-semitism, this tragedy looks -- so far -- like a poor vehicle for it, and I haven't seen many people worth listening to going there. Of course, I'm a technophobe who doesn't do social media and doesn't follow the Twitterati, so I'm not au courant on the musings of former porn site executives and the like. If anyone serious wants to take more than 280 characters to discuss how (or if) left-wing anti-semitism differs from right-wing anti-semitism, or why certain segments of the black community regard Jewish whites as different in some way from WASP or Irish or Italian or Polish whites, that might be interesting, and it might even be "complicated." Until someone tries that, I won't get exercised about quick, substance-free hits.
Those who want to know how in the hell the attacks were complicated can read Ms. Alptraum to get a representative answer.
They might do that, or they might look at the facts as they develop and decide for themselves. But that's too much like work and thought and patience. Retweeting people who have no claim on our attention is so much easier.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Cory Booker Bows Out”
I am not insisting that geographic balance is necessary, only that it is usually treated that way by the people who make these decisions.
On “Lawrence Lessig and Clickbait Defamation”
Two points: First, in Musk's case there was a genuine issue of whether he was making a serious accusation of pedophilia, which would be defamatory, or just using the term "pedo guy" as a synonym for "creep," which is just general assholery and abuse. A jury could reasonably have come to either conclusion. I didn't pay enough attention to the evidence and had no way to judge general credibility, so I don't have an opinion on whether the jury got this right or wrong. It was their call, and it wasn't obviously wrong, though if I had sat through the trial I might have voted differently.
Second: For certain kinds of defamation cases it is necessary to show what are called "special damages," concrete, definable damages other than (or more likely, in addition to) hurt feelings, but taking the "pedo guy" statement as an accusation of pedophilia, no "special damages" are required. Emotional harm, or hurt feelings, is enough.
None of that is to deny that a jury presented with a plaintiff who could not show more than hurt feelings (for example, proof that a number of people took the accusation seriously and believed it) might be inclined to let a technically liable defendant skate. Indeed, I suspect that the lack of evidence of damage might have affected the jury's decision on whether "pedo guy" was a serious accusation or just abuse.
On “Cory Booker Bows Out”
Warren-Booker has a geographic balance problem. So too Sanders-Booker. Biden-Booker would be even worse. He might fit well with Klobuchar or Mayor Pete.
On “I Want to be Kissed by a Scoundrel”
No means no, but it's not unreasonable for someone to have to say it twice.
On “Wednesday Writs: US v. 40 Barrels and 20 Kegs of Coca Cola”
I suppose it's a kind of progress that we now have powerful women who can abuse their power for sexual gratification.
On “Notorious but Cancer-Free RBG Returns”
It will be put up on YouTube soon afterward. Remind me and I'll give you the link when I get it.
"
This is good news. A bar association committee to which I belong is presenting a musical comedy roast of RBG on February 5, to an already sold-out house, which we had to reschedule from last year because of her earlier health issues. I have the juicy part of Judge/Justice Scalia, and I have been looking forward to performing in front of my former Civ. Pro. teacher.
On “From Fox19 in Cincinnati: CNN settles lawsuit with Nick Sandmann”
True, so the question is whether to spitball forever -- or at least for a long time -- or not.
"
The cost to CNN of defending this lawsuit, even successfully, would have been in the low seven figures. Unless and until we get useful information about how much CNN paid, all the theorizing about what the settlement "means" is just spitballing. Not that that will stop anybody.
On “From the New York Times: Trump Backs Away from Further Military Conflict With Iran”
Where is George Aiken when we need him?
On “Multiculturalism: Can We Talk?”
This must be mis-formatted, because it obviously has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, whether Joe Sal is hard to understand "here," or whether he is hard to understand in general. Please put it where it belongs.
FWIW, I don't know if anyplace else has something like EPCOT, though Disney has theme parks outside the United States. EPCOT-like places seem perfectly anodyne to me, though my one trip there bored me to tears. What do you have against EPCOT?
"
What makes "here" any different?
On “From The Hollywood Reporter: Harvey Weinstein Charged”
I knew Harvey Weinstein in college -- he was a sleazebag back then -- and kept some track of him, but I knew nothing about the state of his health in recent years. Though a fat slob like that is very likely, at his age, to have problems. So I was "surprised" to see him with a walker, though only in the sense that, if asked about his health a week earlier, I would have had no basis to say anything. His using a walker wouldn't strike me as a ploy, even though I have a decades-old predisposition to think the worst of him. Doesn't mean it isn't a ploy, but as the doctors tell the medical students, "when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."
On “Multiculturalism: Can We Talk?”
My pragmatic answer is that they can come here and think what they want, but they have to do what they're told on important matters that affect the rest of us until they become the dominant culture, or persuade us that their way is right and ours is wrong. Worship whatever imaginary friend you choose, eat what you like, and, within very broad limits, dress as funny as you please. No skin off my nose, and more bacon for me.
"
Joe's routine is a long-winded riff on the banal insight that people disagree about stuff, and have more room to disagree on matters of social fact or of value than of physical fact. The position is self-proving by the very existence of Joe Sal. Therefore, it doesn't tell us much. Being universally true, it is utterly useless in discussing specifics.
And yet, living in a real, if partially social, world in which things have to be resolved somehow, preferably by means other than brute force (though what is the social objectivity of this preference for avoiding brute force?), we do have to talk, give reasons for what we say, and see if we can come to an understanding. That can be hard. Much easier to wash everything, or at least everything you don't like, in a universal solvent.
"
Asking Joe Sal to explain himself is, generally, futile. Perhaps KWH has noticed that.
On “U.S. Airstrike Kills Qasem Suleimani, Others”
Wag the Dog.
On “Attacks on Jews in New York. Again.”
If you want to take the opportunity presented by the recent attacks to talk about those things, preferably with someone who actually holds the position you're attacking, be my guest. Division of moral labor, and all that. I have zero interest in talking about talking rather than talking, period, but that's just me. I don't make any claim to pronounce on the proper topics of public discourse.
On “Trump’s Benghazi”
The real reason this isn't another Benghazi is that Trump is President.
On “Attacks on Jews in New York. Again.”
Adam Smith taught us long ago that the division of labor was a mighty force for economic progress. It would be perverse to criticize a person whose job is to sharpen the points of pins by saying that planting wheat is more important. Indeed, it is, but not everybody has to do everything all the time. We're better off dividing our labor.
I think the same insight applies to moral progress. The division of labor contributes there as well. Just this morning, I read an account of the Justice Department's strange decision to prosecute the Monsey stabber under 18 USC 247 rather than 18 USC 249. It did not include any condemnation of the stabber, or of anti-semitism in general. (The author, for what it is worth, is Jewish.) I do think it safe to assume, however, that he condemns both. But is that the best use of his time and talent, or are we better off if he does what he is good at and explains an issue most of the rest of us would not otherwise understand? The answer seems obvious to me.
Somebody out there is likely already to be putting a great deal of work into figuring out whether the Monsey stabber, who is clearly otherwise guilty of attempted murder and some federal hate crime, is crazy enough to have an insanity defense. I'd be surprised if that person's contribution to our understanding of the matter will include, or would be improved by including, denunciation of the obvious badness of what the Monsey stabber did, whatever his mental state.
Likewise, if some people take the opportunity afforded by these recent incidents to discuss the many flavors of anti-semitism, the differences between them, and, perhaps, the different strategies for dealing with them, which really is, unlike the Monsey stabbing itself, "complicated," I don't insist that they insert a paragraph condemning what no one supports. But then again, I don't see myself as the schoolmarm setting the bounds of public discussion.
"
There aren't any "citations and whatnot" that answer the question "What do you mean?" If you don't want to say what you mean in your own voice and stand, or stagger, behind it, there's no point in playing whatever your game is.
"
What is the "it" you keep referring to as "complicated"? And whatever "it" you mean, do you agree or disagree that that "it" is "complicated"? Or would you rather just posture without saying something definite enough to be held against you in the future?
"
Do you have a point? Of course people are talking about recent anti-Semitic attacks, and nobody needs social media to know that. The first thing you cite the is the New York Daily News, a newspaper, my hometown paper, which I read in hard copy every day. Is anyone worth takinga seriously saying that this latest attack is "complicated," or that it sheds much light on the actually complicated issue of the many different kinds of anti-semitism? No doubt some folks will jump on it in bad faith to try to, say, blame Trump, or liberals who don't like Likud, or who won't say anything bad about anyone black, or dismiss anyone who would rather talk about "complications" than the attack itself, but they don't deserve to be taken seriously
"
As it currently stands, the situation isn't particularly complicated. Some mentally-ill guy who was off his meds harbored crazy anti-semitic beliefs and acted on them. Was he anti-semitic because he's nuts or was he anti-semitic and nuts? I don't know yet, and neither does anyone else. Maybe we'll find out more. Maybe we won't. Maybe he's crazy enough to have an insanity defense to what otherwise looks like a straightforward hate crime prosecution; maybe he isn't. Don't know yet, but we'll probably find out soon.
But if the "situation" is not this crazy killer and why he did what he did, but some larger political point someone wants to make about anti-semitism, this tragedy looks -- so far -- like a poor vehicle for it, and I haven't seen many people worth listening to going there. Of course, I'm a technophobe who doesn't do social media and doesn't follow the Twitterati, so I'm not au courant on the musings of former porn site executives and the like. If anyone serious wants to take more than 280 characters to discuss how (or if) left-wing anti-semitism differs from right-wing anti-semitism, or why certain segments of the black community regard Jewish whites as different in some way from WASP or Irish or Italian or Polish whites, that might be interesting, and it might even be "complicated." Until someone tries that, I won't get exercised about quick, substance-free hits.
"
Those who want to know how in the hell the attacks were complicated can read Ms. Alptraum to get a representative answer.
They might do that, or they might look at the facts as they develop and decide for themselves. But that's too much like work and thought and patience. Retweeting people who have no claim on our attention is so much easier.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.