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 -
If
The ticket is legitimate
The NGOs suing can themselves be sued for frivolity
The cop has nothing to fear. Although I can imagine a lawsuit for a frivolous lawsuit for a frivolous lawsuit…getting out of hand.
I believe that generally, the law should, only and be heavily incentivized to, be applied in obvious cases. In ambiguity, the justice system does nothing, except ensures the defendant has a way to prevent or at least record future infractions.
For example:
If someone runs over the speed limit, they get fined. If someone is wrongly fined and has their own evidence, they appeal, and get repaid with extra. If someone is wrongly fined but has no evidence, better luck next time: they can start recording their speed, so if they’re caught again they’ll have evidence to reverse both cases.
If someone has a legitimate claim, they sue. If someone is clearly illegitimately sued, they counter-sue. If someone is illegitimately sued but can’t prove obviousness, both parties waste their time.
Rulings can be appealed a fixed number of times, possibly zero. The appeals themselves will waste everyone’s time, unless the defendant can prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that the prior ruling was clearly wrong (not just ambiguous), or the plaintiff can prove the defendant’s new argument is frivolous (or clearly the same as their old argument).
My basic reasoning is: the more the law is enforced by letter, the more it can be sidestepped (broken in spirit). The more it’s enforced by spirit, the more susceptible it is to corruption, and corruption in the law is more dangerous than corruption in other institutions. If the law is only enforced in obvious cases, both issues are reduced: the letter is too unambiguous to sidestep, corrupting the spirit would be too obvious. Meanwhile, other institutions with softer enforcement can counter non-obvious infractions, either by making them obvious to the law, or using ambiguity to their advantage. The law (by itself) doesn’t prevent crime, so at least some of these other institutions are necessary anyways.
More options
Context Copy link