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's just a common example that you'll find of bullshit complaints about the legal example.
Then it seems like the top court of the US, with a conservative majority, disagrees with your assessment.
Yes it is generally true like 99% of the time or whatever. People who are innocent (and also not extremely unlucky where the circumstances make them look guilty) and last that long are rare. It is a perfectly fair heuristic.
Heck it's not even just the legal system, the same sort of discussion happens with stuff like getting banned from video games. Almost every single complainer you'll see on a game forum saying they were unfairly banned was actually a cheater/spammer/saying slurs/etc. The cases where they were actually unfairly banned either on accident or abuse of power are few and far between.
It is such a good heuristic (almost all complaints about getting punished in a free society or popular consumer product or whatever are from people who really did deserve it) that it's true even with far less serious consequences to be avoided.
Sure, but the US system looks to be pretty accurate overall. If you do spot checking instead of cherry picking, you'll easily see that basically every single case you look at would not just deserve it but clearly so.
Nope, they both work at the same time! Refer back to the video games ban I mentioned. As a consumer product, they are incentivized to ban rule breakers while also accidently banning as few innocent paying customers as possible. So they have their own type of blackstones ratio avoiding false positives because each one is a loss of money.
Thus you create that situation, most people complaining they're a false positive ban are actually liars. It's not perfect, but it is a general thing you can assume and be right about all the time.
It's a heuristic you're using to refuse to consider evidence that might disprove your claim.
Is the claim that I'm cherry-picking, or that the cherries are extreme outliers that would never survive under SCOTUS scrutiny, or that the cherries don't exist?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link