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 -
I cannot express an opinion on whether or not anyone has been acquitted using the "gay panic" defense, as I have simply haven't investigated it. I have investigated the question of whether anyone accused of murder has been acquitted after using the "trans panic" defense, and have been unable to find even a single example of a case meeting this description. In all of the examples cited on the Wikipedia page, all of the people who used the "trans panic" defense were still convicted. I have searched high and low, and I'm open to correction, but until someone can show me a specific case in which
then I think the only reasonable response is to assume that this is just a myth ginned up from whole cloth.
It's also interesting that the Wikipedia article includes paragraph after paragraph about the various jurisdictions in which the gay and/or trans panic defense is formally banned. How strange to put so much legislative legwork into banning a criminal defense which seems to have a 0% success rate.
The 'she wasn't a virgin' defense to rape allegations didn't get accepted by juries very often in the modern era, but it was still pretty costly for genuine victims even where they were successful in getting their attackers brought down. What extent people don't bring charges in marginal cases where those costs are high is an unknowable number, but it's probably not zero.
Victims generally aren't present in the courtroom during murder trials.
Barring bad soap operas, no. But prosecutors will want to bring witnesses, have to question the target, and (while I'd argue shouldn't) handle the media, and all those things are more expensive when the first question is 'did you know she had a dick'.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’m wondering if it has succeeded as a defense against lesser violent crimes, maybe battery? Beating up a hooker is often treated as a less serious crime than it should be anyways.
More options
Context Copy link
Is there a list of allowed defenses in court? I suppose there are explicit ones (self-defense), so the existence of explicit not-allowed defenses seems plausible (although I'm not quite sure if that should square with jury nullification existing), but if you and your attorney really want to run the Chewbacca defense I didn't think there was a rule against it. Even if the jury accepts that defense, I suppose, although it'd probably make me question the jury selection process.
Yeah, that's the argument I've made whenever the topic comes up: defendants can use any ridiculous defense they want to. Pretty much everyone agrees that serving as your own defense attorney or taking the stand as a defendant are spectacularly bad ideas, but no one can actually stop you from doing either if you're really determined to. Multiple defendants have used the "Matrix defense": I don't believe anyone has ever used it and been acquitted (the closest they came was a ruling of not guilty by reason of insanity), but if someone really wants to, why stop them?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link