site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 9, 2024

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.

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Daniel Penny Acquitted

Last Friday after several days of deadlocked deliberations, the judge agreed to the prosecutor's request to drop the most serious charge of manslaughter, and asked the jury to consider the lesser charge of negligent homicide. It's strange that the jury was so quickly able to dismiss this charge while spending multiple days debating the more serious one.

This case was pretty controversial but judging by the political temperature I don't forecast any major protests or riots.

Explain like I am not a NY lawyer: why would everyone in the jury find him not guilty of Criminal Negligence but be split on Manslaughter?

Maybe people on the jury saw the dropped charge for what it was, a naked attempt to still send Daniel Penny to prison when it looked like their case was lost.

My guess is that there were one or two people on the jury who saw Penny as a hero who wouldn't agree to any conviction no matter how minor. I would have been one of those people, and would have more than willing to hide my power level during jury selection.

I'm sure our lawyers will chime in, but they always seem to miss the point. It's not about the nitpicky lawyery details most of the time. It's about who has the power to get what they want, using the law as a pretense to achieve this.

Regardless of the instructions, the jury was really asked to consider "do you think Daniel Penny is a murderer who you want to see rot in prison"?

Maybe the DA will face some blowback for wasting the public's money trying to send a good man to prison while routinely failing to prosecute career criminals who prey on ordinary people.

My guess is that there were one or two people on the jury who saw Penny as a hero who wouldn't agree to any conviction no matter how minor.

It doesn't look like it played that way. If 10 or 11 of 12 are willing to convict then they aren't going to decide to acquit because of 1 or 2 people, especially not so quickly after the higher charge is dropped. If the jury is mostly willing to convict the guy of manslaughter after days of deliberation, I don't see 2 people turning around the other 10 in a couple of hours. This looks more like most of the jury wanted to acquit but one or two holdouts wanted a conviction. Dropping the manslaughter charges may have signaled to the jury that the prosecution didn't really believe in their case, which may be enough to flip these people.

I would have been one of those people, and would have more than willing to hide my power level during jury selection.

I'm generally curious; what makes you think you could hide your power level during jury selection? How do you think you could accomplish this?

I was selected on a murder trial a couple years back and it was easy as hell. Nobody wanted to be there. Over half the jury pool was rejected on spurious reasons.

Getting on a jury was relatively easy in my recent experience.

If over half the jury pool was rejected for spurious reasons then it doesn't sound like it was that easy to get on. I'm assuming you answered the voir dire questions honestly.

No most of the jurors obviously wanted to get out of jury duty. They cited things like missing work, obviously lying about strong political opinions, etc.

obviously lying about strong political opinions

As someone who has strong political opinions about criminal justice, I have no idea what I’d do if I were picked for jury duty. Either I’m honest about my very strong views and I look like a crazy liar, or I lie about them and perjure myself. It’s a tough break.