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 -
Medical malpractice is the area of civil law dealing with incompetence. Outside the medical context, culpable incompetence leading to the death of an innocent is the crime of manslaughter. Medics are de facto but not de jure immune to criminal prosecution for manslaughter, even if they fall so far below the standard of care that they might as well just be cutting people up at random. We do prosecute medics for murder where malicious intent is proved (the famous cases in the UK are Harold Shipman and Lucy Letby, and the controversy around the Letby case demonstrates how hard it is to draw the line between sufficiently severe incompetence and malice). The primary control on culpable incompetence in medics is professional discipline, up to and including withdrawing licenses to practice. When a junior doctor and a nurse were prosecuted for incompetence under conditions of overwork and inadequate supervision, the UK medical profession had a collective freakout that required the Health Secretary to promise never again.
One of the problems with US policing is that there is no licensing regime for cops, and qualified immunity and sovereign immunity are sufficiently broad that civil law is not an effective remedy for culpable incompetence by police. There is a huge and highly technical body of police malpractice law, but it only protects guilty criminals who can get off (due to the exclusionary rule) if the police made a legal mistake while building the case - thus giving the worst of both worlds, with no remedy for genuinely innocent victims and all the costs of overlawyering. So criminal prosecution of rogue cops is the only stick the system has, and it is too big a stick for the required detail work. Defensive policing is just as harmful as defensive medicine, and people (quite properly) go ultra-defensive in the face of possible jail time. (See also the unintended consequences of abortion bans with doctors preferring to let pregnant women die rather than risk relying on the medical-necessity exception - this issue can be resolved with sufficiently clear published guidance and Texas has done so, but badly-governed red states haven't bothered.)
If this is the covert Godwin's law violation it looks like, then letting the vast majority of the goons off worked out pretty well in the end that time. The worst thing you can do is to prosecute the goons while letting the boss hide behind plausible deniability - that destroys non-criminal organisations.
More options
Context Copy link