Objectively intelligent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If you want to have the most free and unfettered of markets, where it’s fair game to seek to destroy an opponent and shut down his message rather than engage it, expect the same in return.

This author is saying certain types of uses of a term are beyond the pale. Um, no. All is fair in total war. I don’t like it either, but the market cares not what I think any more than it does what the author thinks.

Sorry, I can't keep track of when you think the exchange of ideas is like a free market -- you know, where people buy and sell things in mutually beneficial economic exchange -- and when you think it's like total war -- where people try anything to kill each other, duh. Maybe you want to think through that and sort it all out.

Also, your summary of what Elizabeth Spiers shows a poor grasp of what she said. Hint: More apt to say that she is engaging in the exchange of ideas than that she is trying to destroy you. Maybe it would be easier to participate in the intellectual exchange if you weren't sheltering in a ditch to avoid the forces of "wokeism"? The market does care what she thinks, fwiw, even if you don't. She makes a living from it, if not a killing, pun intended.

[Hank Chinaski]

Hi!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sorry, I can't keep track of when you think the exchange of ideas is like a free market -- you know, where people buy and sell things in mutually beneficial economic exchange -- and when you think it's like total war -- where people try anything to kill each other, duh. Maybe you want to think through that and sort it all out.

Also, your summary of what Elizabeth Spiers shows a poor grasp of what she said. Hint: More apt to say that she is engaging in the exchange of ideas than that she is trying to destroy you. Maybe it would be easier to participate in the intellectual exchange if you weren't sheltering in a ditch to avoid the forces of "wokeism"? The market does care what she thinks, fwiw, even if you don't. She makes a living from it, if not a killing, pun intended.

You have said that responding to speech one doesn’t like by calling for a boycott or firing of a speaker is just more free speech. You’re right. It is. “Total war” may also be used as a metaphor for that approach, as that approach is extreme and deviates from the traditional approach of either ignoring or refuting speech one does not like.

Within these highly aggressive market behaviors you also find another nasty tactic - turning the other side’s buzzwords into insults. Making the very term around which they rally a pejorative to the majority of society.

These are both free speech. They are also hacks of the system of discourse normal people have traditionally observed. They are tricks, devices, and they preclude the exchange of useful free expression.

And she’s a blogger. No killings.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You have said that responding to speech one doesn’t like by calling for a boycott or firing of a speaker is just more free speech. You’re right. It is. “Total war” may also be used as a metaphor for that approach, as that approach is extreme and deviates from the traditional approach of either ignoring or refuting speech one does not like.

Within these highly aggressive market behaviors you also find another nasty tactic - turning the other side’s buzzwords into insults. Making the very term around which they rally a pejorative to the majority of society.

These are both free speech. They are also hacks of the system of discourse normal people have traditionally observed. They are tricks, devices, and they preclude the exchange of useful free expression.

And she’s a blogger. No killings.

When someone to the right talks about race and gets a critical response, you fret about "cancel culture" and talk about how we need to remember the Enlightenment. When someone to the left talks about it, you talk about how total warfare, without the fretting. "Precluding the exchange of useful free expression" is exactly what you say you don't like about "cancel culture," but you might as well be an Air Force colonel talking about Vietnamese body counts in 1967. "Yes, that napalm has a substantial impact on hard targets like that elementary school."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

When someone to the right talks about race and gets a critical response, you fret about "cancel culture" and talk about how we need to remember the Enlightenment.

No. When someone on the right or left talks about race and gets a critical response, that's traditional free speech. A person says something, and someone disagrees.

OTOH, when a person says something about race (or anything, really) and in reply, another person calls for that person to be boycotted, or to lose their job, or to be socially ostracized, that is not traditional free speech. It is still free speech, of course. Just not enlightened, traditional, classically understood free speech. It is not engagement, it is certainly not criticism. It fits the analogy of being a "total war" response.

When someone to the left talks about it, you talk about how total warfare, without the fretting.

Talking about, or critiquing, something and calling for the boycott/firing/shunning of a speaker are two very different things, which you know. You're trying to conflate them to make two very different reactions seem alike.

"Precluding the exchange of useful free expression" is exactly what you say you don't like about "cancel culture," but you might as well be an Air Force colonel talking about Vietnamese body counts in 1967. "Yes, that napalm has a substantial impact on hard targets like that elementary school."

Idk where you were going with this.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Talking about, or critiquing, something and calling for the boycott/firing/shunning of a speaker are two very different things, which you know. You're trying to conflate them to make two very different reactions seem alike.

I pointed you to that piece by Elizabeth Spiers. You did not talk about or critique what she said. You started talking about total warfare. ????????

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I pointed you to that piece by Elizabeth Spiers. You did not talk about or critique what she said. You started talking about total warfare. ????????

She complained about people turning woke into a pejorative. As if that's wrong, that it shouldn't be stolen and turned against itself.

I responded by stating that she's missing an obvious reason for its being stolen (which is a critique of her). My criticism was that, to be woke is to weaponize expression. The woke have been some of the loudest voices for boycotting or firing, rather than engaging, speech they do not like.

When this occurs, one cannot complain when his opponents start using similarly extreme bad faith tactics, like stealing his buzzwords and turning them into insults.

I don't know how she misses this, or where she finds the temerity and lack of self awareness to scold people for using the term as an insult. She actually seems offended by it.

Welcome to the war, Liz. Nobody likes it, but if neither side is willing to drop their extreme responses to each other, expect it to escalate.

(One wonders if she'd be similarly dismayed at people crying for firings and boycotts.

Underdog Bias seems to permeate all these arguments. Those perceived to be on the short end of the power dynamic are allowed to engage in extreme responses, but those on the other end may not.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She complained about people turning woke into a pejorative. As if that's wrong, that it shouldn't be stolen and turned against itself.

I responded by stating that she's missing an obvious reason for its being stolen (which is a critique of her). My criticism was that, to be woke is to weaponize expression. The woke have been some of the loudest voices for boycotting or firing, rather than engaging, speech they do not like.

When this occurs, one cannot complain when his opponents start using similarly extreme bad faith tactics, like stealing his buzzwords and turning them into insults.

I don't know how she misses this, or where she finds the temerity and lack of self awareness to scold people for using the term as an insult. She actually seems offended by it.

Welcome to the war, Liz. Nobody likes it, but if neither side is willing to drop their extreme responses to each other, expect it to escalate.

(One wonders if she'd be similarly dismayed at people crying for firings and boycotts.

Underdog Bias seems to permeate all these arguments. Those perceived to be on the short end of the power dynamic are allowed to engage in extreme responses, but those on the other end may not.)

What a long-winded way of saying, "What's wrong with monetizing bigotry?"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She complained about people turning woke into a pejorative. As if that's wrong, that it shouldn't be stolen and turned against itself.

I responded by stating that she's missing an obvious reason for its being stolen (which is a critique of her). My criticism was that, to be woke is to weaponize expression. The woke have been some of the loudest voices for boycotting or firing, rather than engaging, speech they do not like.

When this occurs, one cannot complain when his opponents start using similarly extreme bad faith tactics, like stealing his buzzwords and turning them into insults.

I don't know how she misses this, or where she finds the temerity and lack of self awareness to scold people for using the term as an insult. She actually seems offended by it.

Welcome to the war, Liz. Nobody likes it, but if neither side is willing to drop their extreme responses to each other, expect it to escalate.

(One wonders if she'd be similarly dismayed at people crying for firings and boycotts.

Underdog Bias seems to permeate all these arguments. Those perceived to be on the short end of the power dynamic are allowed to engage in extreme responses, but those on the other end may not.)

I suppose that kinda follows from your myopic and tendentious characterization of what it means to be "woke."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

When someone to the right talks about race and gets a critical response, you fret about "cancel culture" and talk about how we need to remember the Enlightenment. When someone to the left talks about it, you talk about how total warfare, without the fretting. "Precluding the exchange of useful free expression" is exactly what you say you don't like about "cancel culture," but you might as well be an Air Force colonel talking about Vietnamese body counts in 1967. "Yes, that napalm has a substantial impact on hard targets like that elementary school."

I just want to know why, to paraphrase Erick Erickson, that uppity black girl is trying to cancel the queen?

[LessinSF]

Bezos Scores $218K Fees After 'Overstaffed' Legal Team's Win
By Craig Clough

Law360 (March 5, 2021, 11:01 PM EST) -- A California judge granted Jeff Bezos' request for attorney fees Friday after defeating a defamation suit by his girlfriend's brother over a phone hacking incident, but signed off on just $218,000 of the $1.68 million Bezos requested, finding his team was "overstaffed" with seven partners and 11 associates from two firms.

During a phone hearing, Superior Court Judge John P. Doyle told William A. Isaacson of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP that he did not question his integrity or that his efforts defending Amazon.com Inc. founder Bezos — the world's richest man — weren't reasonable, but that he would "be remiss" to grant the full request.

The judge said in a tentative ruling issued before the hearing that Bezos' team, which also included attorneys from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, was "overstaffed," with seven partners and 11 associates for a total of 2,077.7 billed hours on a case won on an anti-SLAPP motion. As outlined in the tentative ruling, the judge ultimately approved fees for two partners and three associates for a total of 280 hours while keeping hourly rates roughly where they were requested at $549 to $1,125 per hour.

"If my concept here violates some kind of legal standard that governs on fees motions, I will stand humbly corrected down the road," the judge told Isaacson. "But I think I'd be remiss to award you $1.7 million fees on [this] motion. I'd think I'd be remiss, and that has nothing to do with your integrity or skill level or good intentions. Nobody can lay a glove on you, Mr. Isaacson."

Michael Sanchez, the brother of Bezos' girlfriend, media personality Lauren Sanchez, told the judge in a motion that the fee request should be denied in full based on the excessive amount, but if any fees were awarded it should be around $86,000.

"We argued that the fees should be negated completely based on the sort of obscenity of the request," Thomas D. Warren of Warren Terzian LLP, who represents Michael Sanchez, told the judge.

Michael Sanchez's lawsuit, filed in January 2020, accused Bezos and his investigator Gavin de Becker of planting false information with media outlets painting Michael Sanchez as the source of sexually charged text exchanges between his sister and Bezos, contributing to Bezos' separation from his ex-wife, MacKenzie Scott.

The lawsuit also alleged Bezos and de Becker "peddled rumors to reporters that Mr. Sanchez was involved in a conservative conspiracy with high-profile political operatives, including Roger Stone and Carter Page, and the Saudi government to take down Mr. Bezos."

Sanchez wanted the court to order Bezos and de Becker to issue statements correcting their alleged lies about him. He sought unspecified damages as well as attorney fees and costs.

After news of Bezos and Lauren Sanchez's affair broke in 2019, the Amazon.com Inc. founder lashed out at the National Enquirer, penning a February 2019 blog post in which he shared emails purportedly written by Dylan Howard and Jon Fine, the chief content officer and deputy general counsel, respectively, of the tabloid's publisher, American Media Inc.

Bezos claimed the messages showed "blackmail and extortion" in retaliation for his investigation into how the tabloid obtained the explicit photos and text messages he had exchanged with Lauren Sanchez. The allegations never materialized into legal action.

Judge Doyle in November granted Bezos' and de Becker's anti-SLAPP motion and threw Michael Sanchez's lawsuit out. Bezos and de Becker said they didn't finger Michael Sanchez, even though he was indeed the source of the messages.

Bezos and de Becker pointed out in their motion that Michael Sanchez was named as the source of the text exchanges by the National Enquirer, one of the tabloids that got the scoop.

California's anti-SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation, statute stops lawsuits intended to censor or silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal fight until they abandon their criticism.

During Friday's hearing, Warren noted that Bezos' team had three partners on the phone call with the judge while his firm staffed the entire case with one partner and one associate. He also questioned the costs outlined by Bezos' team, which were requested and approved at $36,019.26.

Warren said most of the costs were for photocopies and legal research.

"The last time I checked I wasn't charging my clients for photocopies anymore, since its 2021," Warren said.

Isaacson told the judge he thought he was making a legal error and that "what the court should be doing is looking at if what we have done is reasonable under these circumstances."

The judge interrupted him and said, "I think we're talking about two different types of reasonable. Maybe I'm wrong."

Sanchez is represented by Thomas D. Warren of Warren Terzian LLP.

Bezos and de Becker are represented by William A. Isaacson and Julia Tarver Mason Wood of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, and Edward H. Takashima of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP.

The case is Sanchez v. Bezos et al., case number 20STCV04212, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

--Additional reporting by Lauren Berg. Editing by Michael Watanabe.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Bezos Scores $218K Fees After 'Overstaffed' Legal Team's Win
By Craig Clough

As long as the lawyers got paid, it's ok if Bezos doesn't get it all back from the other side.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

As long as the lawyers got paid, it's ok if Bezos doesn't get it all back from the other side.

He got a shit ton of my money in stock and my daily amazon purchases.

And . . . now I just realized I can pick shit out off the Amazon/whole foods web site and they deliver it free within two hours. I click around, look for some veggie vindaloo and wham, on the doorstep by the time I finished "Statement of Facts."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Warren said most of the costs were for photocopies and legal research.

"The last time I checked I wasn't charging my clients for photocopies anymore, since its 2021," Warren said.

one of those cases where the lawyer who lost might get better buzz that the 15 that won.