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 -
Yeah, it's not too often but lots of pardons can happen this way. You don't have to get into the news cycle, you can literally file an application with the governors office/state clemency board/etc.
Now it might take a few years, they don't really prioritize that often (in part because most applications are bullshit and they are truly guilty and don't have a good case!) but it happens.
Wouldn't controversy increase the chance of a news cycle?
I'm not sure "my imaginary probabilities" is a good source for this sort of topic.
I 100% mean if their is a scissor statement it’s more likely to get pardoned if your in the correct state.
Do you seriously disagree that the results of Chauvins guilt/innocent would not be different in Texas or other red state (same evidence/same event/etc). I 100% think he’s completely innocent. Even if say it occurred in Austin and he got convicted Gov Abbot would have had a ton of pressure to pardon him.
You're in the minority view even among just republicans there.
Also consider that it's not just state charges, but also federal charges he was found guilty for. He went through two different juries and appeals processes (including the US supreme court with its 6-3 conservative majority denying the appeal), so your confidence that there's no basically no chance of him even being charged yet alone convicted in a red state seems inaccurate.
45% of Republicans find him innocent. Which means he absolutely would be innocent in Texas. And it’s likely a much higher rate of not guilty in Republicans who watched the entire 30 minute police interaction who know he did things like saying he couldn’t breathe BEFORE any force was applied or who read the entire medical report and know he had a potentially fatal does of fentanyl in his system. It’s probably close to 95% or even 100% of Republicans who find him innocent.
Like your own study completely supports my position. The 45% of GOP who find him innocent are likely the far more online and active Republicans. The exact people that would heavily pressure a Republican governor to pardon him.
Exactly. If the framing of the media presentation was adjusted the base facts in the perception of the public likely change. 55% of Republicans agreed with the ruling after an exhaustive full-court press from the entire media system to portray Chauvin as a murderer.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A huge amount of that is the framing of the case and how it was argued. If it happens in another state it's likely covered quite differently in the media and different evidence is admitted
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link