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 -
Ok so... i'm often seriously confused about what safety people actually care about.
I understand fear of handguns a handgun is an easy to procure object in a hurry that allows someone to commit a crime suddenly and violently.
But it seems any type of premediatated or planned operation is just super legal and easy to get? (except of course using it to commit a crime is obviously very illegal)
Nitromethane is freely available for purchase, which can be easily made into very dangerous chemicals using stuff you can buy in the hardware store. From there we have other things, while you have to either break the law or DIY it for a lot of parts you can make your own drone (or just use a kids RC helicopter toy, seriously it may not work for heavy payloads but you'd be shocked at how far you can go with mediocre toys these days.) and drop an explosive on anyone. You can also make actual war crimes in your basement by mixing iron powder, and sulfur then heating it, sealing it in a glass bottle with water as it builds up H2S. Alternatively if you want to make cyanide gas, buying sodium cyanide (i'd be willing to post links but I don't want this forum to actually get in trouble with the FBI, I already got searched once) and mixing it with sulfiric acid is doable (and ok like hyper dangerous beyond belief and you would have to basically get rid of it the moment you make it but....)
Again the delivery mechanisms for this stuff isn't complicated and the main limiting factor of these does not appear to be that obtaining the means of violence is hard it's that anyone smart enough to do this is also smart enough to realize that violence is a bad idea.
A handgun is a very convenient tool for the casual homicide. You don't have to be smart to use it, and it is a minimal inconvenience to carry it around while you go about your daily business until one day, you decide that someone needs to die (or be stopped from whatever he is doing) and can enact your decision within a few seconds.
There are plenty of other tools which can be used for murder in a pinch, you can use screwdrivers to stab someone, or hit them with a blunt object, or run them over with your car, or pierce them with sharpened Hufflepuff students' bones.
If a reasonably smart person wants to off her neighbor and does not care about the consequences to herself, she will probably find a way to do so. Most likely, it will not involve any flashy homebrewed chemicals. (H2S is a terrible choice in particular because humans can detect it in trace amounts and find it deeply unpleasant, and having your victim inhale HCN is difficult unless you have trapped them in a gas chamber.)
Of course, if she cares about not getting caught, she will most likely use a method which is already common (such as handguns), because anything clever and original will exclude 95% of the suspects immediately.
This is why you homebrew phosgene or sarin. Although I think that explosives are better if you want to terminate someone with extreme prejudice.
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
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