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 -
Also depends on whether you’re prepared to go to jail or not.
Modern science and autopsies have reached the point of technological advancement where poisons and chemical compounds are generally detectable in a homicide.
The best ones are the ones that break down into elements that occur naturally. Succinylcholine (SUX) and potassium chloride are two good examples that always come to mind. SUX causes asphyxiation and paralysis, but it’s a very painful death.
Potassium chloride causes severe heart arrhythmias and mimics a heart attack. (Fentanyl incidentally also simulates cardiac arrest and wouldn’t be suspected in a sudden death unless it’s specifically looked for and there’s reason to suspect foul play).
These break down to elements natural in the body and would easily be overlooked. Succinic acid and choline for SUX, potassium and chloride of course for potassium chloride which is common in heart attack victims due to muscle damage.
The problem with this though is that both need to be injected and they leave an injection site, which is a problem if the victim doesn’t take any injected medicine or drugs.
Aconite is another good one that’s more well known. It leaves Aconitum alkaloids, but these can only be detected if a gas chromatography / mass spectrometry scan is performed. Death usually happens due to paralysis of the respiratory system (or cardiac arrest). It can be absorbed through the skin or consumed and it only takes about 2mg of pure aconite or one gram of the plant, to kill someone. It’s mostly undetectable as long as there’s no cause for a more comprehensive autopsy (and it can also be ingested).
If you know their personal history, there are other ways to poison someone and make it look accidental. If they love seafood for instance, you could always poison them with tetrodotoxin (which naturally occurs but is generally removed by a skilled cook).
Never thought my chemistry knowledge would come in handy this way, but there’s all sorts of ways.
Regardless of the chemistry involved, I don't think there's much chance of getting away with this kind of murder. The authorities have access to other types of records -- surveillance footage; cell phone records; purchase records at stores; internet search histories; etc. If you have a motive to kill the person, e.g. you and your neighbor were having some kind of dispute, they are going to look at all this stuff carefully. And if it seems like you are probably the culprit, they are skilled at putting a case together, even if it entails doing ethically questionable things.
True, but you can’t effectively convict someone on circumstantial evidence alone. Most criminals get caught because they’re desperate or stupid. The police don’t catch smart criminals. They catch the low hanging fruit, they’re getting the ones who can be caught.
Approximately half of all murders each year in the US end up going unsolved. That’s not the conviction rate you want with all the “… surveillance footage; cell phone records; purchase records at stores; internet search histories; etc. If you have a motive to kill the person, e.g. you and your neighbor were having some kind of dispute…” that you have at your disposal.
Having grown up in proximity to violent gangs I can tell you plenty of gang members exit the drug trade and go into legitimate businesses all the time and never get caught. The whole trope of “I’m going to only make a couple million and then quietly exit,” isn’t a myth. It happens all the time. You’ll find only 1-2 pictures of these people floating online. They have zero Internet presence. They aren’t extravagant or flashy. They’re normal by every appearance; there’s nothing for law enforcement to work with.
A long time ago I watched one of Michael Franzese’s videos and someone was interviewing him about people in that life who were known killers. He said a lot of it is grossly inflated by law enforcement and he can’t imagine some of the figures that were attached to certain suspects, because there are people in active war zones who don’t even kill that many people in the line of combat. There are active hoods in the United States of America that have murder rates higher than the we had at the height of the war in Iraq.
I have no problems believing the numbers suspected by these guys. I once observed a discussion someone had with a historian who just didn’t believe the Mongol’s genocide of the Islamic world was as large as it was because the logistics of it didn’t make any sense. And the historian replied back “You don’t need industrial facilities to commit a genocide. You just drag someone out to the back with a machete and kill them…” I think statements like the one you offered and of people like Franzese really just come from a failure of imagination and living closely on the ground to that kind of activity.
It’s really not the surprise people think it is.
What percentage of the unsolved murders are gang-bangers in the ghetto, getting away with it in large part because the authorities don't really care all that much? I don't know the stats, but I bet it's a pretty high percentage.
Here's what I said in my post:
Do I need to spell out what I meant by "this kind of murder"?
So that I understand what you are talking about, would you agree that Bryan Kohberger was convicted (or would have been convicted) on circumstantial evidence alone?
Don’t know the percentages. But I can put it to you this way; the people in our hood growing up who were known to have been shooters or involved in them are either still free to this day or are doing time for non-homicide related offenses. Most murders in the US are not due to them being some kind of high organized special hit that requires military expertise or sophistication.
You missed my point. The point I was implying is that if you’re goal is to “get away” with murder, provided you know what you’re doing, your knowledge of chemistry and physical science is one of the best places to make your bet.
I didn’t claim that it “never happens.” How many murders do you think are resolved purely on circumstantial evidence? Most don’t even make it to the courtroom.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There was that lady in Australia that poisoned like five dinner guests and got away with it by claiming ignorance and that was an accident, despite her food being safe to consume.
It looks to me like she was convicted. Maybe you were thinking of someone else?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdezzxnn7kjo
Edit:
If this is the person you are talking about, it seems like a good illustration of my point. There was some kind of family dispute which gave the woman a motive; apparently surveillance video showed her disposing of a food dehydrator which she later denied having; there was evidence that she had traveled to an area where poison mushrooms are available; etc.
It's just really hard to put together this kind of murder without leaving forensic evidence of guilt. The police are going to question you for hours and it's really hard to present a straight, consistent story. etc. etc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link