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 -
Remember Seattle's CHAZ/CHOP? After the place was cleared, a bunch of local businesses and property owners sued the city and now they all reached a settlement. One part that definitely didn't help Seattle were tens of thousands of deleted text messages:
[...]
Why won’t there also be criminal proceedings for the people who destroyed evidence?
Ever heard of Qualified Immunity? It protects state agents from consequences of conduct which, if done by a peasant, would otherwise result in criminal sanctions. Detectives can lie on the stand, prosecutors can hide exculpatory evidence, jail officers can scald the skin off a prisoner, cops can even kill people, and there's basically nothing you can do about it.
edit: this answer was incomplete, I expand upon it here.
Qualified immunity only covers civil trials, so in theory criminal charges wouldn't be impossible. One of the parts that makes Jessop go from tragic to tragicomedic is the detective in charge of the search, who almost certainly would have been involved in the alleged theft, had already plead guilty to other on-duty-crimes by the time the case had gone to the 9th Circuit. Of course, there's no private right to bring criminal charges in California, and criminal law isn't particularly focused on making people whole, so gfl.
((Also, technically, prosecutors fall under prosecutorial "absolute immunity", as do judges fall under judicial absolute immunity, which manages to be worse: even clear and knowing violations of well-established law can not be brought to heel in civil courts, so long as those actions are done under their official duties. But that's mostly a nitpick, given that "knowing violations of well-established law" might as well be a black hole.))
You're correct, I linked to a more complete answer.
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