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 -
Typically speaking, there is a Grand Jury to assess if there is enough evidence to prosecute. Prosecutors do not want to take on cases where there is insufficient evidence to convict, because they cherish their conviction rate.
In cases of a government agency being involved with the self-defense, there is an internal review. If the internal review finds nothing wrong, it is unlikely to make it to a Grand Jury in the first place.
A murder trial is expensive for the government. It isn't a thing to undertake lightly. You have to rip away 12 random people (the jury) from their lives for weeks. The level of evidence gathering, expert testimony to be paid out, etc. is very high. I would recommend watching the Rittenhouse trial to see what it looks like for an innocent man to go through all that. Then watch Daryll Brooks trial to see how hard it is on everyone else in the courthouse to go through all that even when the man is guilty as sin.
Edit: something else is that we are innocent until proven guilty. The assumption that someone acting in self defense needs to prove their innocence is wrong. They are not in a nebulous "not sure if guilty" state. It is on the courts to prove guilt, and if they do not think they can they should not make the attempt.
More options
Context Copy link