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 -
That sounds like an odious context, because it doesn't really need to be identified now does it? Unless you're enforcing the extremely severe law on people who accidentally see a 17 year old on some mainstream website. Which is probably the main use case for that.
Anyway AFAIK, they're also allowed to broadly posses it, receive it, distribute it, and even cause the production of it. I have read that they entrap people by sending it to them when asked, and the by asking for photos of family members that they then use to identify the people they entrap. This implies possession by the FBI, knowing reception by the FBI, knowing distribution by the FBI, and encouraging production by the FBI. It almost looks a pedophilic enterprise operating under the thin cover of pedo hunting. The only difference is the badge. Imagine if one of those street hunter people did this. They would be arrested! Personally I think their methods should be reigned in, because makes me sick to see an FBI agent when I know he is quite likely to be someone who trades it on the darknet all day for „justice” or „the greater good” or whatever. I'm glad entrapment is illegal in my country because it must select for some disgusting people to sign up for law enforcement duties.
Yes, yes. It's all legal. That's how your law works. It's wrong, but it's how you made it work. Except for the part where the evidence might be planted. But that's impossible to prove, and defendants are forbidden from alleging it in court. Which means they are not allowed to really defend themselves. Which means it would be very easy for the government to get away with it, when you understand how it all works.
Yep the difference between law enforcement acting in an official capacity to catch criminals is different than a vigilante. The same way you can't be a "street hunter" for drugs and just do it to sell drugs to people.
The justice and greater good of catching pedophiles actively seeking out child abuse material.
Entrapment is an incredibly misunderstood legal doctrine, it is not entrapment that you get caught doing a crime you were already doing. Entrapment is not allowed in the US either.
Yes, they use the same tactics for drugs as well. Which should be illegal.
You can have that without entrapment. Many countries do, including my own.
Americans have redefined it to make it okay in their country. The common sense definition is any act which is meant to entice someone to commit a crime is entrapment. United States law enforcement at all levels commits many such acts of entrapment. If the entrapped person was already doing the crime, then they need to be prosecuted for those acts, not acts that they were pushed to do by law enforcement. If law enforcement can't find evidence, then too bad, that's the point of privacy rights. 99% of the time they can't find evidence because the act is actually not harmful, which is why victims are not lining up to testify about how they have been damaged.
What country are you in? It seems more reasonable that you, like most citizens, misunderstand your local laws than that your country never uses undercover cops at all.
I am in Europe however I would rather not reveal my exact country. Just look it up and you can narrow down the list.
So I checked and ChatGPT does explain that some of the countries have stricter limits but they all do seem to still allow undercover work that would fit into the "undercover cop offers you drugs" framework. Or a similar "car is left with door open and they arrest anyone who steals from it" framework.
Germany allows it for serious crimes with prosecutorial and judicial authorization. Netherlands has judicial oversight. France allows it for organized crime and narcotics. UK had a few major scandals so they also require higher authorization first. They do seem to be a bit stricter on how much you can pressure someone before it falls into incitement, but that's it
It's possible the check is wrong, but it's just really hard to imagine a nation that takes drugs or CP or gangs or other crimes seriously and doesn't allow undercover work to catch people who are willfully commiting crime.
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
More options
Context Copy link