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 -
No but being found in contempt of court is a pretty solid piece of evidence he did it, whereas not being found in contempt of court is a pretty solid piece (although not as solid in this direction) that it hasn't happened. The court system is generally reliable.
Now the court system is also slow and it could be that we are just in the period between contempt happening and contempt being found by the courts, which in that case I can update when it happens instead of speculating on a situation where most accusations are bullshit.
Two things are rare.
Officials defying the court is rare
Layman accusations that an official denied the court being true is also rare.
The rarity of the 2nd does apply here, because he's making an accusation that a public official defied the court. But normally such accusations are not true! I covered numerous examples of how this happens in my comment beforehand.
The challenges themselves being true is statistically rare!
It's like an accused drunk arguing the breathalyzer was faulty. That does happen sometimes (it's probably way more common than officials in contempt of court) and it's probably more likely in cases where the accused drunk contests the charges. But it is still also true that the large large majority of the time the accused drunk contests the charges, the breathalyzer was properly working.
So 1. "The breathalyzer actually being faulty in general is rare" and 2. "The breathalyzer actually being faulty when contested is rare" are both true statements! And a person saying "no but my case is special and it was faulty" can be generally dismissed until/unless they can show otherwise.
In court showing otherwise is pretty simple. Has he been found in contempt?
More options
Context Copy link