re: Lawfare: how is this defined, and how can it be (legally) stopped?

quote:

---

I define lawfare as a dog whistle type of phrase used to signal between maga supporters that something is unfair to them or someone they are required to support.

---

There is more to it than that, but within the political rhetoric context, that is largely correct right now.

The fact they don't include the bogus lawsuits after the 2020 election in "lawfare" and didn't gasp in horror after the Thiel-Gawker lawsuit make me question their objectivity in the assessment, however.

If we can't call a clearly political-partisan based lawsuit that relied on fraudulent accusations, "lawfare", then the drawing board is going to get real big, real quick.

The bigger issue is that including legitimate convictions/suits as "lawfare" opens the door to a lot of territory they reject (the "BLM argument" stuff)

The larger issue is the "we need to make the conspiracy bigger and add another layer" reliance to group together actors who are essentially independent, in order to permit the whataboutism (to loop in legitimate suits and prosecutions).