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 -
I have submitted a (much more polite) request for clarification and correction to the Western Journal of Emergency Medicine editorial. When (or if) that's ever published, I have a draft on the Forensic Science Medicine and Pathology paper.
On the downside, the chief editor has cited the Hargarten editorial already, and paraphrased it incorrectly, no less. I've had to dox and face reveal myself (those poor bastards) as part of the process.
On the upside, the WestJEM editorial team actually responded to my e-mail eventually, and I've even gotten access to some nonpublic drafts of papers from other related ballistics trials.
On the other downside, the Forensic Science paper has been cited repeatedly in the Viramontes case, including in an amici brief submitted by one of the lead writers of the Forensic Science Medicine and Pathology paper. And it's terrible.
Not only does it repeat many of the mistakes from the original paper, it's sloppy about them. Some of those mistakes include a couple I've been holding back in reserve -- do you know what happens to bone rapidly submerged in a giant block of 132 degree Celsius oil and have you ever made soup stock? do you know that if you trace (after three hops) the LaSueur's citations about 9mm indirect bone fractures, you instead an example of a handgun causing a fracture and the same rifle only being able to rarely cause a fracture at a seventh the distance as the LaSueur trial?
And now I know things that are not public information.
It's fascinating that the public version of the Cranfield data does not mention, not even once, what grade of ballistics gel simulacra it used. The amici claim that it used a "similar" gel. That's fascinating because 10% and 20% gel have drastically different properties, and ClearBallistics sells both. There's an interesting sentence of "The synthetic gel was pre-calibrated by the manufacturer using the standard .177 caliber steel.", which leaves the question of "steel what", and looks almost exactly like what you'd get if the calibration description and depth were cut off by someone trying to scrub details.
Now, that's also a draft paper by someone that thinks a bullet can enter a block of ballistics gel at zero velocity and gain speed by the time it exits, or that the AR-15 can fire 40 gram bullets, among other errors, reported and packaged and signed off by lawyers that think three and six are the same number. I'd like to point out that it costs literally thousands of dollars to publish an amici brief, by the way, just in printing costs. But could just a coincidence.
Unfortunately, Cranfield is not subject to any meaningful disclosure requirements.
More options
Context Copy link