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 -
You have to go through a pretty substantial amount of double checking for a conviction.
The prosecutor to even charge you in the first place, then convincing a grand jury (about 16-23) which while typically very permissive especially with just a majority rule often aren't a rubber stamp, and then generally a judge for pretrial and then a trial jury of 12 who typically all have to agree, and while rare you can also get a JNOV and then you can often still appeal upwards multiple times if you feel that strongly about your case.
While wrongful convictions can and do happen, it's often due to a combination of bad luck and a case/evidence being really complex. It is not perfect, it will never be perfect without forfeiting many of the freedoms and privacies we have (a price most citizens do not wish to pay), but we try really hard to make sure only the criminals are punished.
Many of the founding fathers believed strongly that the courts must be trusted to punish the criminals and that the innocent must be safe. Such as this from John Adams, where he believed that a society where the innocent don't feel safe for their innocence breaks down the very rule of law, and they were determined to err on the side of caution to keep free society secure and stable.
Thanks for the reply, you clearly know more about the process than I do. I definitely lean more towards @Jiro's sensibilities, where the system should work by not criminalizing normal behaviour rather than not convicting normal behaviour (kinda, usually, unless we don't like you). But we live in a complex world, and I'm not a hardcore libertarian. I do understand that there are sometimes tradeoffs, and going after both producers AND consumers of child porn leads to less child abuse than the alternative.
Mind you, we're now in a world where AI can produce child porn without any victimization at all. So there's much less reason to criminalize certain patterns of bits. Will the laws adjust? I doubt it. The ratchet only goes one way. Even Rand Paul probably doesn't want his name on the "Free the Pedophiles" bill.
More options
Context Copy link
"The law makes it possible to charge a lot of innocent people, but it's okay because the system will probably use discretion and not put them in jail" is a recipe for tyranny.
The usual scenario is where the government wants to get you anyway, either because they hate the actually-legal things you're doing, because some prosecutor or cop knows in his heart without evidence that you're guilty of some crime, or because finding you guilty will cover their asses after some kind of mistake, or because it would be good publicity to catch a criminal. Then the double-checking miraculously vanishes. Three felonies a day is a little exaggerated, but it only takes one felony to ruin your life.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link