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 -
As a side note, the evidence produced by mobile phones is fascinating to me. Some time in the last 10-20 years, it became nearly impossible to get away with murder or any other serious crime. The main exception being situations involving some gang-banger in the ghetto and law enforcement doesn't particularly care.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but I am rather sure that people who kill others in busy streets are doing it wrong (tm). Basically, if your murder plan involves 'and then members of the public will start to point their phones in my direction and film my actions', your murder plan is not very good.
I think the main difference is that you used to get away with behavior which was not so much worse than everything else what was going on. In the middle of a riot, it is unlikely that everyone will stop doing what they are doing and watch you in horror as you torch a car. Today, chances are you will still be caught on camera and identified after the act (depending on how aligned you were with the tribe currently in power, of course).
Of course, we must bear in mind that most murderers are impulsive dummies.
Yes, (solved) murders are overwhelmingly low IQ phenomenon.
Is it because smart people are more moral, or because the perk of being smart is ability to find out easier solution to your problems than murder?
The drive by’s and burglaries gone wrong murders which go unsolved were also not committed by Einstein. Statistically Dr Moriarty’s murders were all committed against cheating spouses or something where you don’t need Sherlock to figure it out. Dumb, impulsive people kill more randomly, because they are dumb and impulsive.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Excellent comment. Now I desperately want to read @quiet_NaN’s “You’re Doing It Wrong: How to Kill Correctly And With Style”.
De Quincey may have gotten there first.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, it depends where you are.
For example, if you live in drug infested town or neighborhood where deaths by overdose are common, just invite the prospective victim to shoot drugs with you, and inject him with lethal dose of fent.
Just another overdose, just another number in the grim tally. How many of these numbers are really unfortunate accidents, and how many are suicides or murders? No one knows, no one will ever care.
Actually happened to a friend of a friend 30 years ago. A cartel tried to bump him off, figuring a tourist overdosing on the other side of town would be a good distraction ahead of a drugs sweep. They just hadn't realised that he was already a heroin addict with heroic tolerance for the stuff - he woke up two days later none the worse for wear.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not really, at least in the US.
In the hood, you do not get away with anything for long. Friends of the deceased usually know well who did it, and prefer to deal with the perpetrator (and his friends) themselves. This is how old American self sufficient spirit looks like.
"Perfect murders" in classic detective stories style would be:
1/Victim dead, death recorded as due to natural cause, accident or suicide, no murder case opened.
2/Victim went missing, no missing case opened because, well, no one missed the victim.
How many of such cases are here is impossible to estimate.
I'm open to evidence against my claim, but the cite you provide doesn't say WHICH homicides are remaining unsolved.
So your claim is that the 58% figure quoted in your article consists mainly of homicides outside the "hood"?
The figure consists of homicides solved by formal white man's law, as opposed to ghetto street law.
How many people really get away with murder in such sense that they face no adverse consequences in their lifetime (excluding guilty conscience, if applicable) is unknown and unknowable.
So it sounds like you agree that, outside of the "ghetto," for the most part homicides get solved. Is that right?
But we can set an upper bound on it, agreed?
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