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 -
For what it may be worth, the second photo pings my "butch" radar. And I think that if you could show the two photos to Americans who didn't know the context and culture war issues, most would agree that the woman depicted in the second photo is MUCH more likely to be a stereotypical angry aggressive lesbian.
I'm talking about your bias, not media bias. Ironically, the sort of photo you posted in your blog post is typically NOT admissible in criminal trials, except in some states which have passed "Victim Life Photo" statutes. I don't know if Minnesota has such a statute in place, but I tend to doubt it given that it's more conservative states which have passed these kinds of laws.
In short, I'm pretty confident that the photo you posted in your article would be inadmissible as evidence in a hypothetical trial of the shooter. At a minimum, it is totally irrelevant to Ross' guilt or innocence. Certainly at least as irrelevant as Good's (possible) criminal history.
(As far as media bias in photo selection goes, let's just say the whole situation with Trayvon Martin has heavily informed my views on this issue.)
Anyway, it seems that in arguing that Good's (alleged) criminal history would be inadmissible at trial and therefore should not be considered by the public, you simultaneously include pro-Good evidence which would likely be inadmissible at trial. One example is the photo at the top. Another example is Good's intentions. (" if so, did she do so intentionally, or through negligence? ")
As a result, it's hard to take your blog post seriously.
I'm open to the idea that the photo of Good used by many publications wouldn't be admissible in a criminal trial, although I think you're being a bit melodramatic regarding how "flattering" the photo in question is. It's just a photo of her standing on a beach and smiling: it's not like she's volunteering at a soup kitchen or treating malarial children or something. And please explain to me how the question "if Good struck Ross, did she do so intentionally or through negligence?" would be inadmissible in a criminal trial. By definition, a question is not "evidence".
So you concede it's totally irrelevant to Ross' guilt or innocence?
In your view, is there a big difference between the two photos? If you think there isn't a big difference, would you mind swapping in the second photo on your blog post?
I was talking about evidence of her intentions. The question you pose in your blog post suggests that in your view, such evidence is directly relevant.
Suppose the prosecutor said something like this in his opening statement: "You are going to see evidence that the Defendant gunned down a woman in cold blood who was merely trying to get away"
In that case, I'm pretty sure that at a minimum, the defense would be entitled to a jury charge along the following lines: "In deciding whether the shooting was justified, you should not consider Ms. Good's intent. What matters is whether the Defendant reasonably believed that he faced a grave threat of death or serious injury."
I don't understand the question you're asking me. "Is this photo of Good irrelevant to her guilt or innocence?" Yes, did I ever suggest otherwise?
No, I don't think there's a big difference between the two. I used the photo I did because numerous news outlets were using that photo.
Yes, I would mind.
Why? I mean, you say that you don't think there's a big difference. If there's not a big difference, you shouldn't have a problem substituting one for the other.
Actually, that's just a rhetorical question which you don't need to answer. We both know why you (and the mainstream media) are using the smiling femme beach photo of Renee Good and not the smirking dykey car photo. And any reasonable lurkers also know.
Anyway, there's not much else to say. You wrote a blog post focused on complaining about irrelevant negative evidence regarding Good. In the same post, you included (and/or alluded to) irrelevant positive evidence regarding Renee Good. As mentioned before, it's hard to take your blog post seriously.
I don't have a problem with substituting the photo because I think there's a big difference between the two photos. I have a problem with it because it's my blog, and you don't get to dictate what I post on it, especially not when you don't even claim that I made a factual error, especially not when you're going about it in such an obnoxious and condescending manner.
I find your hostility all the more baffling because, to me, the video evidence strongly suggests that Good did strike Ross with her car, and that the shooting was justified. A few days ago I posted a comment to that effect on Substack (also pointing out that just because Ross walked away from the incident, doesn't mean he wasn't injured, citing several anecdotal examples of people I know who were severely injured but didn't notice because of shock and adrenaline), and several people quickly accused me of being an ICE apologist. I guess if I'm simultaneously being accused of being an ICE apologist and an anti-ICE apologist, I've done a decent job of being even-handed.
Regardless, this sort of paranoid mind-reading:
is not why I come to this space, and I don't think it's in keeping with the established ethos.
Looks to me like you are experiencing cognitive dissonance, but I'm disinclined to get into a meta-debate about it.
Even if I'm being totally rude and obnoxious, it doesn't change the basic fact that you wrote a blog post complaining about irrelevant and unflattering evidence regarding Renee Good while at the same time pushing irrelevant evidence that does the opposite.
No, I'm not. You're being obnoxious, condescending, hostile, and ascribing intentions and ulterior motives that I don't possess. And now armchair psychologising me to boot.
No, I didn't. I used the first photo of Good that Google images returned. I didn't spend paragraph after paragraph gushing about the poetry she'd composed or what a good mother she was. I used a photo of her which was already in widespread circulation.
No jury is going to be on the fence about whether to convict Ross, see this photo, and immediately think "oh my God! I didn't know Renee Good once set foot on a beach! Send him to the chair!" I cannot believe you are getting this bent out of shape and ascribing such sinister Machiavellian intent about my choice to use a mildly flattering photo of the deceased, up to and including demanding that I change it because my choice of photo might hypothetically bias some prospective jurors ruling on Ross's case who are reading my blog post for some reason. Prospective jurors who have doubtless already seen this photo because it's already been used in much higher-profile articles by numerous media outlets, including a conservative outlet which is supportive of ICE's mission and unsympathetic to Good and her fellow activists.
I suppose next you'll tell me that FOX News used this photo to curry favour for Good, and cast Ross and ICE in as negative a light as possible?
Seriously, dude, give it a rest. This jumping at shadows is tiresome.
Whatever.
This is an attempt to confuse the issues and it's hard to see as anything but deliberate. Any competent defense attorney would object to that picture coming into evidence and any fair judge would exclude it from evidence. Obviously it's not just the fact that at some point she's visited the beach.
Anyway, I don't engage with people engage in "strawmanning," which means ascribing exaggerated positions to others as a way of making them seem less reasonable. You've clearly done that here by pretending that it's just a matter of whether she's visited the beach.
This is obviously more strawmanning. I made no "demand" that you change the photo. Rather, I made a polite request. Moreover, I did not cite potential juror bias as a reason for my request.
I have no patience for these sorts of misrepresentations.
This exchange is concluded. Goodbye.
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