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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The most under discussed part of the saga seems to be that America has its own incipient Rotherham scandal where Somalis are given carte-blanche to rape at-risk American teenagers due to the authorities turning a blind eye to these crimes.
Yes. I clicked on the court documents and that's all the reason given: "In the interest of justice." No subject, no verb, just that phrase, which could mean anything.
Perhaps overly charitably: I wouldn't expect the DA to write "The victim recanted and we have no physical evidence", "We no longer believe the crime occurred", or even "We think the officer lied in their report" or anything like that which would disparage their case or work generally. I could imagine "In the interest of justice" could be a euphemism for cases that aren't exclusively covering up crimes that would raise a politically-charged rabble. But the less charitable reading seems viable as well.
I agree, for me it's just an example of frustrating wording, in a situation where a considerably more concrete reason seems appropriate.
If I had to guess what actually happened, it's that a teenage girl in foster care(and let's be clear here- she was a sixteen year old in foster care) ran away from her placement(and it was probably actually legitimately shitty), encountered this guy(who it seems like she already knew) who offered to let her stay at his place for a while after she complained and she accepted with full knowledge that that meant having sex with him(if we have any teenage girls reading this- an older male acquaintance who's willing to let you sleep over because you're mad at your guardians absolutely expects that), and she either got mad at him for whatever reason or wanted to get out of trouble for running away so she said he raped her.
Yes, survival sex with teenage runaways is bad behavior. But rape charges over it getting dropped doesn't require any other explanation.
Good God, I hope not.
Worry not. Teenage girls have other things to do.
Charge they phone, eat hot chip and lie, I assume.
What is hot chip?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link