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.
Personally, I'd say that if the police and prosecutors pressed charges against Dumana / Belov in the current political climate, the evidence against him must be pretty strong, and that would warrant a 70% bet in the other direction (keep in mind your original argument rested on nothing more than statements from the police, not official charges, or an actual convction).
But that's beside the point. I don't really have a problem with you falling on the other side of this and sticking to your guns, my issue was with your top level post on the topic, and how you portrayed anyone unconvinced by your arguments as unreasonable.
Hmm? I don't think that's the case. I also heavily stressed what can only be described as "local sentiment", perhaps priors, in addition to the official story. The locals (debatably including me) thought it's more likely than not.
For example:
That is not true. I think I made a strong argument, but I also acknowledge:
In other words, as a Bayesian, my opinion is that you should at the very least be slightly swayed by the argument. That is not the same as thinking that anyone who disagrees with me is unreasonable. There are actual people (living breathing humans) who are immune to any argument, probably including divine intervention. My scorn is largely reserved for them.
Similarly, the article you shared has meaningfully moved my posteriors. Back then, I expect that if anyone asked, I'd say I'm 80-90% confident of a lack of guilt, and now I've moved down to 70%. That is precisely the kind of update in the face of new evidence that I endorse and respect. Hence why I do it myself.
I expect that if a conviction is secured, I'd jump to maybe a 90% certainty that I was wrong, and if they're acquitted, then back up to 90% confidence of being correct. Feel free to tag me if something happens, since I don't really read the BBC that often.
Well, maybe I took it all a bit too personally, but even with your explanation it kinda feels like you're saying that not moving your priors based on the things you mentioned is unreasonable. I happened to find the arguments you brought up unpersuasive, so their effect on my priors was mostly zilch (maybe witch the exception of the police originally charging the girl), and I think that's perfectly justifiable.
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