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 -
We apparently have one more update on the Braveheart Incident. Previous discussions:
The latest update is a short article from the BBC:
This is throwing me for a loop. The good news is that unlike the local news articles I cited previously, the BBC actually names the accused, the bad news is originally the adult involved in the incident was identified as "Fatos Ali Dumana", and now I have no idea whether we're talking about the same guy, and it was just a nickname, or it was a completely different person. A quick google search only turned up some indie (somewhat tinfoily) blog post, where it is indeed claimed that "Fatos Ali Dumana" is just an alias, and that the perps real name is Ilia Belov. What speaks in it's favor is that the post is dated September 12, 2025, so way before this current BBC article (and here's an archive.org snapshot to corroborate), so it's not someone trying to use the latest info to portray the original story as true. Other than that I only found some dude on Reddit urging people to look up a Facebook reel:
I don't have Facebook, so I can't confirm.
Either way, the accusations put forward by the prosecutors seem largely consistent with "Braveheart" story - girls got sexually harassed, assaulted, and one of them went for makeshift weapons in order to defend her sister / friends.
I am sure that everyone who wagged their fingers saying how "nothing will convince us otherwise", how "they knew something was off", how it's a "noble effort, but hopeless" because us chuds are too biased and stubborn, will now wag their fingers at themselves with the same amount of enthusiasm.
I'm happy to concede if the prosecution ends in a conviction. I still think it's more likely than not that they're acquitted (if I had to put a number on it, 70%).
I'm also happy to acknowledge that acquittal doesn't necessarily mean a lack of guilt, but I don't think the British judicial system is so corrupt that it represents null evidence.
If you are using judicial verdicts to update your world view as if they were unbiased (in the statistical sense) estimators of guilt, you are doing it wrong.
Suppose a parent shows up at a hospital with a non-verbal, injured child, displaying injuries of a type which is generally thought to be caused by violence in 85-95% of the cases and accidents in 5-15% of the cases, as estimated by different domain experts. Suppose that there is no further evidence to be found either way -- the parent denies using violence, and there is no video of how the kid got injured.
The way I have constructed the example, there is only one possible outcome in a fair criminal trial: acquittal due to reasonable doubt, as the courts would rather let ten guilty go free than sentence one innocent.
A guilty verdict is very strong evidence of guilt. A verdict of 'not proven' is very weak evidence of factual innocence (as opposed to legal innocence).
I imagine this can lead to cases where two people who had a gunfight can both get away with claiming self defense. If we try A and find we have to acquit him because it is plausible that they acted in self defense, we obviously can not base a trial on B around the finding that A was innocent as far as the law could tell.
For the Braveheart thing, I do not really have a horse in the race. On priors, I would find it more likely that young men harass some underage girls than that some underage girls get out of their way to threaten some young immigrant men, but stranger things than the latter have happened.
The bayes calc on it would just be a total win for the "he touched the girls" take.
Reminds me of the Australian SAS warcrime case. Footage was released of what was inarguably an extra judicial killing of a captured and unarmed man. Like, I'm ex Australian army and not even I could deny that these guys were guilty of murder. But there were still hundreds of people saying "they haven't been convicted yet" and "the investigation hasn't been concluded."
https://old.reddit.com/r/Military/comments/1lccwjc/australian_sasr_during_their_deployment_to/
But we could see it with our own eyes. You can see in real time the murder happening, zero grounds for self defence. In war you get away with shooting the odd POW, sure. That guy could have been making IEDs or have personally killed Australians, sure. But if you get caught on camera you go to jail. That's how the world works. Why do people insist on the outcome of the investigation or the court ruling when they can see with their own eyes the crime occurring.
It's a weird deferral of responsibility, even though we know the courts are wrong all the time.
It immediately brings to mind consummate bureaucrat Buck Turgidson:
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