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 -
Sorry, thanks for reminding me. There's no evidentiary rule that would prevent you from calling him other than the general "rule" that you're not supposed to do things that are completely idiotic and without justification. It's generally not considered good trial practice to argue one theory of a case and then call witnesses who contradict that theory. I'm not sure I entirely understand why you would want to put his statement into evidence. You mentioned that there might be other relevant parts of the statement you want to put into evidence. Okay, so is the jury supposed to view this guy as credible or not? You see the dilemma? Sure, you argue that they should believe some parts of his statement and not others, but you need to give them a reason to other than because you politely asked, and that's not a tightrope you want to walk if you don't have to. And here, you don't have to. It doesn't matter whether he was trying to slap the phone out of his hand or hit him in the head with a megaphone, it's involuntary manslaughter either way. The jury can reach the same verdict under either theory, but by asking them to believe one theory and disregard another could make them think that there's legal significance where none exists.There's nothing I'd hate more as an attorney than to lose a verdict where the jury agreed with me on the facts but misunderstood the law because I overcomplicated a fairly straightforward case. You play the hand you're dealt.
More options
Context Copy link