I thought it was interesting that after the fairly complex music of greece and the roman empire, the west's records of music seem to basically start with a single voice gregorian chanting and then build from there into more and more complex music, but I always have to remember "history is written by those who write history" so it's likely that folk music might tell a different story if we had a bunch of it. Regardless of whether the narrative is accurate, it's pretty incredible.
What you're talking about as the focus is something interesting in many different types of music. To a hardened western ear like mine, some stuff like Japanese court music almost doesn't sound like music as we'd consider it today but it's clear the musicians are highly practiced and skilled at their art. One of the reasons to be exposed to a lot of different music early so you have an ear for it.
What you're talking about as the focus is something interesting in many different types of music. To a hardened western ear like mine, some stuff like Japanese court music almost doesn't sound like music as we'd consider it today but it's clear the musicians are highly practiced and skilled at their art. One of the reasons to be exposed to a lot of different music early so you have an ear for it.
(last wall of text for tonight, I'm ruminating a lot today....)
No matter what, Trump is a short term thing. If he wins, he's only in for 4 years and then he's in the dustbin of history. If he loses, someone else is president for 4 years and he's gonna be in the dustbin of history.
The scary thing is that both camps are going to try to find another Trump for different reasons.
Trump was the ultimately successful solution in 2016 to the total meltdown of the Republican party in 2008. They tried a couple iterations of their previous formula which had been reasonably successful but got totally trounced by Obama (who really was more just right place right time in 2008 and didn't screw up), so Trump was something completely different and everyone thought he'd lose but instead he won. The machine that elected him rather existed before he came to power it's just the faces were a bit different, and will exist in some form or another until long after he and Biden are dead of old age and buried. I think there's reasons to be concerned that if Trump doesn't break the establishment this time (whether he wins or not) the GOP could go for someone even more abrasive who they think will break the establishment, but it could also be someone more moderate too, if they find someone with a silver tongue.
The thing that scares me is that the machine dead set on destroying Trump will still exist and the people in that machine will need to find someone new to destroy to justify their existence in positions of power.
These things never go away. Moveon is incredibly ironically named since it was created to tell congress to move on from President Clinton's sex scandals (yet it can't move on from existing since its cause is obsolete). Media Matters I think was created in light of the widespread fraud around the war in Iraq, it's still going today in a media landscape that really doesn't have that much conservative representation among the MSM.
In the same way, the political kill squads meant for Trump, I can't see why they would go away when they could be turned towards other opponents, which I can't see any reason why it wouldn't eventually just turn into tit for tat...
Many people think the Roman Republic died the day Julius Caesar was crowned dictator, but the events that really set the path for the republic were things like the first open assassination, and the first time a Roman general marched on Rome. These events cast the die from which the Republic would fall and 500 years of dictatorships (and a carousel of murdered emperors) would come about.
One thing I note is that once he's not on twitter, Trump isn't really that much of an extremist (an extremist would have broken out the lead bullets during the summer of love, for example. It would have potentially broken a bunch of rules and he might have had to answer for it later, but the office of the president has deployed troops on american soil in the past, such as when Eisenhower used the troops to enforce desegregation), just intended to break the establishment and is a massive jerk. One thing I see is that he might not be extremist, but a lot of young people are becoming more extremist because the current answers aren't working for them. Families have gone from a nuclear family to multiple generations in one home not because it's they want to but because kids can't get good enough jobs to afford a home. Some anthropologists posit that family structure dictates the form a government takes. If we go from a nuclear family to a family where the father (or father and mother) have disproportionate power in the home as the homeowner then that may in fact predict a turn towards a non-democratic government such as we see in patriarchic societies such as china and the middle east.
The change won't happen anytime soon, Trump won't be getting any kind of chance to become a dictator even if he wanted to, but in a couple generations you could have a real problem on your hands, and in other regions of the world that share such a family structure this tends to be bad for women too.
No matter what, Trump is a short term thing. If he wins, he's only in for 4 years and then he's in the dustbin of history. If he loses, someone else is president for 4 years and he's gonna be in the dustbin of history.
The scary thing is that both camps are going to try to find another Trump for different reasons.
Trump was the ultimately successful solution in 2016 to the total meltdown of the Republican party in 2008. They tried a couple iterations of their previous formula which had been reasonably successful but got totally trounced by Obama (who really was more just right place right time in 2008 and didn't screw up), so Trump was something completely different and everyone thought he'd lose but instead he won. The machine that elected him rather existed before he came to power it's just the faces were a bit different, and will exist in some form or another until long after he and Biden are dead of old age and buried. I think there's reasons to be concerned that if Trump doesn't break the establishment this time (whether he wins or not) the GOP could go for someone even more abrasive who they think will break the establishment, but it could also be someone more moderate too, if they find someone with a silver tongue.
The thing that scares me is that the machine dead set on destroying Trump will still exist and the people in that machine will need to find someone new to destroy to justify their existence in positions of power.
These things never go away. Moveon is incredibly ironically named since it was created to tell congress to move on from President Clinton's sex scandals (yet it can't move on from existing since its cause is obsolete). Media Matters I think was created in light of the widespread fraud around the war in Iraq, it's still going today in a media landscape that really doesn't have that much conservative representation among the MSM.
In the same way, the political kill squads meant for Trump, I can't see why they would go away when they could be turned towards other opponents, which I can't see any reason why it wouldn't eventually just turn into tit for tat...
Many people think the Roman Republic died the day Julius Caesar was crowned dictator, but the events that really set the path for the republic were things like the first open assassination, and the first time a Roman general marched on Rome. These events cast the die from which the Republic would fall and 500 years of dictatorships (and a carousel of murdered emperors) would come about.
One thing I note is that once he's not on twitter, Trump isn't really that much of an extremist (an extremist would have broken out the lead bullets during the summer of love, for example. It would have potentially broken a bunch of rules and he might have had to answer for it later, but the office of the president has deployed troops on american soil in the past, such as when Eisenhower used the troops to enforce desegregation), just intended to break the establishment and is a massive jerk. One thing I see is that he might not be extremist, but a lot of young people are becoming more extremist because the current answers aren't working for them. Families have gone from a nuclear family to multiple generations in one home not because it's they want to but because kids can't get good enough jobs to afford a home. Some anthropologists posit that family structure dictates the form a government takes. If we go from a nuclear family to a family where the father (or father and mother) have disproportionate power in the home as the homeowner then that may in fact predict a turn towards a non-democratic government such as we see in patriarchic societies such as china and the middle east.
The change won't happen anytime soon, Trump won't be getting any kind of chance to become a dictator even if he wanted to, but in a couple generations you could have a real problem on your hands, and in other regions of the world that share such a family structure this tends to be bad for women too.
(Sorry, wall of texting everyone tonight...)
I saw a really interesting video a while back that suggested that there were 2 eras for homonid reproduction.
From 800,000 years ago to about 250,000 years ago, the best reproductive strategy for men was to have many partners and not worry about what happened since it'd likely turn out mostly fine since women could carry babies to term the same as other animals.
After 250,000 years ago, the human cranium became so huge that it started to endanger the women, and so first the women were more incapacitated when pregnant, and second the child was born much more prematurely compared to other animals. At that point, the best reproductive strategy for men was to have one (or a small number at least) of partners and be active in the child's development so the woman or women would be supported and the children would have additional support during the extra additional time they're helpless compared to other animals.
The discussion was about men at the time, but I think you can infer that survival strategies for women might be quite different as well under both scenarios.
In this sense, it makes sense that there are different strategies built into us and that they seem to be battling it out within an individual at times, and that for some people one strategy might express itself more than the other (or others -- there could be other strategies not contained in this model)
An interesting side effect of all of it is that it seems like there's something in children where they develop with an innate understanding of whether they are growing up in a stable family or not, and their life strategies actually fundamentally change as a result. Both boys and girls grow up with markedly more risk prone lifestyles. I don't know if it's psychological, physiological, or epigenetic, but it suggests just how profound the different reproductive strategy is on survival, that we've got mechanisms for different types of behaviors built in depending on the status of our family.
I have seen studies on the topic regarding children growing up, and the data is so compelling I don't know how it isn't on the front of every newspaper. The difference between a child with 2 parents and a child with 1 is astronomical.
I suspect that the reason it isn't heavily promoted is that it's contrary to the postmodern conception of life. We are not a tabula rasa, we are human beings ingrained with certain behaviors and mechanisms that helped us survive as a race, which manifest in us differently from person to person as we are each individual holders of a flame of life going back to the first single celled organism and going forward until the last person in our bloodlines expire and our histories are different and our lives are different. Moreover, we are not clay that can be molded into whatever form the powers that be might wish, we have an inbuilt preference for things in a certain way or else we turn to violence and crime and risky behaviors.
I saw a really interesting video a while back that suggested that there were 2 eras for homonid reproduction.
From 800,000 years ago to about 250,000 years ago, the best reproductive strategy for men was to have many partners and not worry about what happened since it'd likely turn out mostly fine since women could carry babies to term the same as other animals.
After 250,000 years ago, the human cranium became so huge that it started to endanger the women, and so first the women were more incapacitated when pregnant, and second the child was born much more prematurely compared to other animals. At that point, the best reproductive strategy for men was to have one (or a small number at least) of partners and be active in the child's development so the woman or women would be supported and the children would have additional support during the extra additional time they're helpless compared to other animals.
The discussion was about men at the time, but I think you can infer that survival strategies for women might be quite different as well under both scenarios.
In this sense, it makes sense that there are different strategies built into us and that they seem to be battling it out within an individual at times, and that for some people one strategy might express itself more than the other (or others -- there could be other strategies not contained in this model)
An interesting side effect of all of it is that it seems like there's something in children where they develop with an innate understanding of whether they are growing up in a stable family or not, and their life strategies actually fundamentally change as a result. Both boys and girls grow up with markedly more risk prone lifestyles. I don't know if it's psychological, physiological, or epigenetic, but it suggests just how profound the different reproductive strategy is on survival, that we've got mechanisms for different types of behaviors built in depending on the status of our family.
I have seen studies on the topic regarding children growing up, and the data is so compelling I don't know how it isn't on the front of every newspaper. The difference between a child with 2 parents and a child with 1 is astronomical.
I suspect that the reason it isn't heavily promoted is that it's contrary to the postmodern conception of life. We are not a tabula rasa, we are human beings ingrained with certain behaviors and mechanisms that helped us survive as a race, which manifest in us differently from person to person as we are each individual holders of a flame of life going back to the first single celled organism and going forward until the last person in our bloodlines expire and our histories are different and our lives are different. Moreover, we are not clay that can be molded into whatever form the powers that be might wish, we have an inbuilt preference for things in a certain way or else we turn to violence and crime and risky behaviors.
He's 2. He really likes music with a strong beat, so on one hand big band music but on the other indigenous music like powwow music.
(sorry, now I'm just geeking out about being a dad for a moment)
There's a neat pair of books called "The Male Brain" and "The Female Brain" that goes though neurological development from inside the womb until somewhat after puberty, and they really opened my eyes to the fact that the brain is a self-wiring device that relies on stimulus to figure out the parts of itself that will be important, and the earlier the stimulus the more the effects because the brain is slowly letting the parts of it.
I started counting to him and singing the alphabet on the day he was born, and as I watched him over the time I took off for pat leave (a few months) I'd try to pick out all kinds of different music, starting with different playlists of current music, then moving into stuff that's not so modern including many different types of classical music from around the world or ancient music. Not going to lie, I didn't like all of it, but the point isn't to make him me, it's to expose him to lots of stuff so he's been acclimated and exposed to many things. I think the 2 forms of indian classical music are somewhat of an acquired taste, but whenever I listen to them it reminds me of the silverchair song petrol and chlorine which is one of my favorite songs from them.
There's also some music from african tribes that was interesting in how much it reminded me of early american rock and roll.
(sorry, now I'm just geeking out about being a dad for a moment)
There's a neat pair of books called "The Male Brain" and "The Female Brain" that goes though neurological development from inside the womb until somewhat after puberty, and they really opened my eyes to the fact that the brain is a self-wiring device that relies on stimulus to figure out the parts of itself that will be important, and the earlier the stimulus the more the effects because the brain is slowly letting the parts of it.
I started counting to him and singing the alphabet on the day he was born, and as I watched him over the time I took off for pat leave (a few months) I'd try to pick out all kinds of different music, starting with different playlists of current music, then moving into stuff that's not so modern including many different types of classical music from around the world or ancient music. Not going to lie, I didn't like all of it, but the point isn't to make him me, it's to expose him to lots of stuff so he's been acclimated and exposed to many things. I think the 2 forms of indian classical music are somewhat of an acquired taste, but whenever I listen to them it reminds me of the silverchair song petrol and chlorine which is one of my favorite songs from them.
There's also some music from african tribes that was interesting in how much it reminded me of early american rock and roll.
In another thread, I'm writing now about how really no matter what Trump is a short-term thing. If he wins, it's 4 years and he's in the dustbin of history. If he loses, it's 4 years of someone else and he's still likely in the dustbin of history because he's not getting any younger.
Trump was the GOP's successful solution to the 2008 collapse of the party in 2016. Thing is, at the executive level they're going to need to go through that process again once they can't just vote for Trump.
I'm concerned that it could be someone way more extreme than Trump since he was elected to break the establishment and he didn't, but as long as he doesn't screw anything up (which isn't a given -- it's really hard to stay active without putting your foot in your mouth hard over years and years) he could be the guy instead. But you might have said the same about DeSantis until he showed he's just a freight train that happened to land on the right track but is going to barrel his way right off the bridge.
Trump was the GOP's successful solution to the 2008 collapse of the party in 2016. Thing is, at the executive level they're going to need to go through that process again once they can't just vote for Trump.
I'm concerned that it could be someone way more extreme than Trump since he was elected to break the establishment and he didn't, but as long as he doesn't screw anything up (which isn't a given -- it's really hard to stay active without putting your foot in your mouth hard over years and years) he could be the guy instead. But you might have said the same about DeSantis until he showed he's just a freight train that happened to land on the right track but is going to barrel his way right off the bridge.
My dad retired, he literally can't stay retired. He keeps getting calls to work.
You can't keep a good man down, the world needs people who can do stuff.
You can't keep a good man down, the world needs people who can do stuff.
I don't want to leave, but I think if the universal basic income passes I'll have to. The government already takes more of my money than I do and still had to double the national debt in just a few years. I think Canada under UBI turns into Zimbabwe and I'm already a trillionaire in Zimbabwe dollars I don't want to be a trillionaire in Canadian dollars... not that way.
Reminds me of a key saying in project management I always come back to: "A Project is something with a beginning, a middle, and an end."
Seems like a straightforward sentence, but for some people they want to keep expanding the scope of a project forever because when you're working on a project you get money and power over the project and when the project ends it's just normal operations after that.
One of the largest projects I ever worked on I had to go to management and say explicitly "Look, this document contains the scope of what this project sets out to do, and once we've done this, it's done and the project is over" because I could see it was going to become a forever project where daily operations were being pulled "into the project" and I'd be trapped in neverending scope creep.
Seems like a straightforward sentence, but for some people they want to keep expanding the scope of a project forever because when you're working on a project you get money and power over the project and when the project ends it's just normal operations after that.
One of the largest projects I ever worked on I had to go to management and say explicitly "Look, this document contains the scope of what this project sets out to do, and once we've done this, it's done and the project is over" because I could see it was going to become a forever project where daily operations were being pulled "into the project" and I'd be trapped in neverending scope creep.
The way you describe it reminds me of a line I wrote, something like "They want to save the world, they can't even save themselves" -- whereas civic activity would be personally acting in ways that may be effective, political activism as a subversion would be being grouped together into a bloc who will do what they're told whether it's beneficial to themselves in reality or not and whether it really has any personal effect on them as individuals because it's for some nebulous greater good.
Am I on the right path with this line of thinking?
Am I on the right path with this line of thinking?
I'm interested in what you're saying, could you elaborate a bit? What would you consider civic activity, and what would you consider political activism? And what are the consequences of the two being separate?
THIS GODFORSAKEN ABOMINATION OF BIRD AND BREAD IS OUR CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL CULTURE.
Not long ago, someone gave a bunch of scenarios of what is the most noble, and one of the options was of a nobleman going broke to ensure his people were fed, and I actually used that term to explain why it was, that a nobleman has the wealth and power of their title, and nobody under them will question it however they use that wealth and power, but explicitly choosing to properly use it to the benefit of your people while being harmed is extremely noble.
Our civilization isn't perfect, but it's got a lot going for it. In my view, if we don't do something to keep it cohesive as a whole then eventually another more powerful civilization will roll over us and all those things we have going for us will disappear. Stuff like noblesse oblige help social cohesion and I think we need desperately for more of that right now.
Our civilization isn't perfect, but it's got a lot going for it. In my view, if we don't do something to keep it cohesive as a whole then eventually another more powerful civilization will roll over us and all those things we have going for us will disappear. Stuff like noblesse oblige help social cohesion and I think we need desperately for more of that right now.
Just look to youtube for innumerable examples. (I have to admit I did the audio book of my book on youtube using AI deepfake of my own voice while I had covid, so I'm not stuck in traffic in this regard I am traffic, but the book is 100% human written)
I'll have to listen to some with my son. One of my goals as a father has been to expose him to as much music from around the world and throughout time as I can, this sounds right up my alley.
I hosted a map site for a while using openstreetmap. You start with the world, and you think you see everything, then you zoom in and start to see countries. Then you zoom in and start to see provinces. Then you zoom in and start to see cities. Then you zoom in and start to see streets. Then you zoom in and start to see buildings. And you can't keep zooming but there's stories in every building, every room, in corners of your own home you have no idea are even happening, and fractally microscopic worlds we can't even see could have someone spend their entire lives studying one particle, and it exists everywhere.
I feel the same way as I learn about things I didn't even know existed to know about. Like the two forms of classical music in India, and now a new little piece of its musical history.
I hosted a map site for a while using openstreetmap. You start with the world, and you think you see everything, then you zoom in and start to see countries. Then you zoom in and start to see provinces. Then you zoom in and start to see cities. Then you zoom in and start to see streets. Then you zoom in and start to see buildings. And you can't keep zooming but there's stories in every building, every room, in corners of your own home you have no idea are even happening, and fractally microscopic worlds we can't even see could have someone spend their entire lives studying one particle, and it exists everywhere.
I feel the same way as I learn about things I didn't even know existed to know about. Like the two forms of classical music in India, and now a new little piece of its musical history.
Unfortunately, often being a massive jerk is perfectly legal, especially in America which has a really powerful tradition of free speech.
Let me flip the question on its head: If it wasn't a millionaire or a billionaire and someone was talking shit about you, what recourse do you really have? Let's say you had a close friend, and you had a falling out and they start talking shit about you. Something really terrible, saying you did things that really were reprehensible. Really, except in some jurisdictions that have "fighting words" legislation, you can't even pop 'em in the jaw.
It's a situation where good people get hurt by jerks, and there's no good answer. If the person is poor and doesn't have liability insurance of any kind you can't even sue because you can't collect the judgement. And if you're poor you can't even sue unless you find a lawyer willing to work for a percentage of the proceeds and take nothing if you lose.
Which opens up a whole jug of access to justice issues and the fact that often whether you're found guilty of a crime or not or liable of a tort or not the process is the punishment... You can really see how in the past the solutions were built around communities dealing with stuff internally between all the people who know each other (with some help from their local religious faction as I understand it), the state is all blunt instrument and rakes that fail to pick up leaves.
All that being said though, I think in Japan (completely different legal system) there's specific laws against famous people using their platform to go after regular people, and I think that might be something the west in general would benefit from. Instead of special protections for those with larger platforms (including billionaires and politicians), provide special responsibilities to them to not do certain things with their stage. I'd have to think a lot more about it, but I feel like if it was properly structured and limited so it wasn't crippling it could be amenable to most people to have something like that. After all, freedom of speech isn't absolute, including defamation but also stuff like commercial speech.
Let me flip the question on its head: If it wasn't a millionaire or a billionaire and someone was talking shit about you, what recourse do you really have? Let's say you had a close friend, and you had a falling out and they start talking shit about you. Something really terrible, saying you did things that really were reprehensible. Really, except in some jurisdictions that have "fighting words" legislation, you can't even pop 'em in the jaw.
It's a situation where good people get hurt by jerks, and there's no good answer. If the person is poor and doesn't have liability insurance of any kind you can't even sue because you can't collect the judgement. And if you're poor you can't even sue unless you find a lawyer willing to work for a percentage of the proceeds and take nothing if you lose.
Which opens up a whole jug of access to justice issues and the fact that often whether you're found guilty of a crime or not or liable of a tort or not the process is the punishment... You can really see how in the past the solutions were built around communities dealing with stuff internally between all the people who know each other (with some help from their local religious faction as I understand it), the state is all blunt instrument and rakes that fail to pick up leaves.
All that being said though, I think in Japan (completely different legal system) there's specific laws against famous people using their platform to go after regular people, and I think that might be something the west in general would benefit from. Instead of special protections for those with larger platforms (including billionaires and politicians), provide special responsibilities to them to not do certain things with their stage. I'd have to think a lot more about it, but I feel like if it was properly structured and limited so it wasn't crippling it could be amenable to most people to have something like that. After all, freedom of speech isn't absolute, including defamation but also stuff like commercial speech.
There's a lot to unpack here...
Civil trials are not criminal trials, they require only preponderance of the evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt so the question asked to the jury is fundamentally different than something you could lock someone up for.
For defamation, this is a tort, not a crime. The purpose of the lawsuit isn't to fine anyone (a fine would be paid to the government rather than the victim), it is to recover damage done by one party to another, and for the most part the thing courts can grant is money. The elements of defamation are 1. That a statement of fact is said by the person, 2. That statement is false, 3. If the individual is a public figure then the statement is known to be false or is made with a reckless disregard for the truth, 4. That the false statement of fact caused damages.
Typically, the purpose of suing someone is to make yourself whole, not to get the state to punish someone for you. Therefore, for a relative nobody who is claiming to have been lied about, there's going to be a limitation on the amount of damages that can be claimed, since 5 million dollars is already more money than most people will make in their lifetimes.
There is some additional money you can ask for based on stuff like "pain and suffering", but again that's not punishment for the person you're suing, it's just that you want to be made whole and the court can't undo your pain and suffering so you pay money in recompense.
There is also a thing known as punitive damages, which is more money given to the plaintiff who is suing to ensure the defendant doesn't commit the tort again. However, even this element starts to run up against constitutional constraints because excessive punitive damage awards can go beyond what's allowable under the law.
Don't take the Alex Jones defamation case as representative of how the process works, most people aren't on trial for accusing a bunch of dead kids of lying about being dead on national television and so it ended up with an exceptional outcome.
Regardless of the size of anyone's judgement against them in a civil case, it would be a massive injustice to jail anyone over it. That's not what the civil courts are for, that's not their job, that's not how they're set up, and if you jumped from a 51% preponderance of the evidence jury verdict to jailtime that would send a lot of innocent people to jail (and even the rich deserve to be free if you can't prove they did something beyond a reasonable doubt)
As an example of the differences between criminal trials and civil trials, O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of the criminal act of murder, but was found to be liable to pay damages to the family in the wrongful death. There was enough found to pay a sum of money, but not enough to deprive O.J. of his rights by jailing him.
Another good example of the difference between criminal and civil proceedings is that the person sued may never even have to pay for the judgement in a civil case -- Insurance may not pay a criminal fine, but it can pay a civil judgement, so it's entirely possible that despite losing the lawsuit, a person who was successfully sued may never personally pay a penny. In fact, a regular homeowner may have a million dollar judgement against them but be protected by the liability insurance portion of their home owners insurance. This really doubles down on the fact that the purpose of a civil case is to make the plaintiff whole, rather than to specifically punish the defendant.
Your heart is in the right place with wanting to make sure punishments for millionaires and billionaires are calibrated such that they are actually painful in ways comparable to a poor person convicted of the same crime, but the facts in this matter are not aligned with that particular cause.
Anyway, I'm sorry... I'm always with the walls of text....
Civil trials are not criminal trials, they require only preponderance of the evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt so the question asked to the jury is fundamentally different than something you could lock someone up for.
For defamation, this is a tort, not a crime. The purpose of the lawsuit isn't to fine anyone (a fine would be paid to the government rather than the victim), it is to recover damage done by one party to another, and for the most part the thing courts can grant is money. The elements of defamation are 1. That a statement of fact is said by the person, 2. That statement is false, 3. If the individual is a public figure then the statement is known to be false or is made with a reckless disregard for the truth, 4. That the false statement of fact caused damages.
Typically, the purpose of suing someone is to make yourself whole, not to get the state to punish someone for you. Therefore, for a relative nobody who is claiming to have been lied about, there's going to be a limitation on the amount of damages that can be claimed, since 5 million dollars is already more money than most people will make in their lifetimes.
There is some additional money you can ask for based on stuff like "pain and suffering", but again that's not punishment for the person you're suing, it's just that you want to be made whole and the court can't undo your pain and suffering so you pay money in recompense.
There is also a thing known as punitive damages, which is more money given to the plaintiff who is suing to ensure the defendant doesn't commit the tort again. However, even this element starts to run up against constitutional constraints because excessive punitive damage awards can go beyond what's allowable under the law.
Don't take the Alex Jones defamation case as representative of how the process works, most people aren't on trial for accusing a bunch of dead kids of lying about being dead on national television and so it ended up with an exceptional outcome.
Regardless of the size of anyone's judgement against them in a civil case, it would be a massive injustice to jail anyone over it. That's not what the civil courts are for, that's not their job, that's not how they're set up, and if you jumped from a 51% preponderance of the evidence jury verdict to jailtime that would send a lot of innocent people to jail (and even the rich deserve to be free if you can't prove they did something beyond a reasonable doubt)
As an example of the differences between criminal trials and civil trials, O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of the criminal act of murder, but was found to be liable to pay damages to the family in the wrongful death. There was enough found to pay a sum of money, but not enough to deprive O.J. of his rights by jailing him.
Another good example of the difference between criminal and civil proceedings is that the person sued may never even have to pay for the judgement in a civil case -- Insurance may not pay a criminal fine, but it can pay a civil judgement, so it's entirely possible that despite losing the lawsuit, a person who was successfully sued may never personally pay a penny. In fact, a regular homeowner may have a million dollar judgement against them but be protected by the liability insurance portion of their home owners insurance. This really doubles down on the fact that the purpose of a civil case is to make the plaintiff whole, rather than to specifically punish the defendant.
Your heart is in the right place with wanting to make sure punishments for millionaires and billionaires are calibrated such that they are actually painful in ways comparable to a poor person convicted of the same crime, but the facts in this matter are not aligned with that particular cause.
Anyway, I'm sorry... I'm always with the walls of text....
"Communism is Soviet Power + Electrification of the Whole Country"
I remember a long time ago reading that word "Electrification" as part of propaganda, since it's just such an unusual word it stuck with me.
It struck me recently how odd it is that we're in a process of electrification right now.
Odd, eh?
I remember a long time ago reading that word "Electrification" as part of propaganda, since it's just such an unusual word it stuck with me.
It struck me recently how odd it is that we're in a process of electrification right now.
Odd, eh?
But this isn't an indictment, and it isn't a fine.
It's a pair of civil cases. Anyone can sue anyone in America.
It's a pair of civil cases. Anyone can sue anyone in America.
