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 -
I think if you ctrl-f 14 and replace with 7, or 10, or 12 for that matter, then I agree with your reasoning everywhere. Except for your position on the study.
There are myriad cases where so-called victims testify in favor of their so-called abusers. This is brushed off as the „child“ not knowing what is „good for them.“ When they testify against their ex-lover, it is usually because he abused her in another way, by beating or cheating usually, or even forceful rape, but the government takes the easy route of applying the easy-to-prove charge of sexual misconduct with an underaged person. While this has its upsides, it's a civil liberties disaster, because it allows the no-victim cases and it bypasses the accused's right to a fair trial. It's directionally the same thing as making speeding a felony, but pinky promising to not prosecute the good people. A lot of times, somebody who everyone thinks is a burglar is sentenced to 10 years for going 90 in the 80, because it's much easier than going through the motions of finding fingerprints or DNA inside a burglary scene, which might not be successful, and then having witnesses scrutinized based on their eyesight and biases by the defense. It's much easier to show, here he is speeding on a camera, we all know he's a bad guy, let's throw the book at him for this pseudo-crime.
So, funny and cute little bypass to the justice process you have there. Sadly, I value liberty over your safety, so I can't stand for it and I don't care how instrumental it was to getting bad guys off the street. This speeding felony atrocity has got to go.
Your retort amounts to, actually, that going 90 in an 80 is empirically tantamount to manslaughter. Driving is dangerous. In other words, you write about 14 year olds like they are 7. I concur that going 200 in an 80 could be tantamount to manslaughter. But nobody does that.
I cite studies supporting my empirical position on speeding, and you reject the scientific method and stick with the civic myth of speeding taboo. If you don't accept scientific studies as a way to bridge this gap, I don't think it can be bridged.
More options
Context Copy link