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 -
Honestly, I read your case expecting worse, but I don’t see the major injustice here. If I was on the jury I’d be one of the “sellouts”: ESH, some evidence is weak on its own but together it’s stronger, moreover yeah Chad is a scumbag in general, and the punishment is only a fine (that he‘ll probably convince some other girl to pay, rinse and repeat). The real losers in this story are the kids: assuming Becky has full custody I’d award her the full settlement for that alone, laws be damned, because (excluding something the defense should’ve mentioned) they deserve the money more than Chad, although I really wish she could be required to spend it on them in case she tries to bankroll another hot loser.
The real sad story of democracy is seeing how many people, faced with the smallest perceived injustices, want to tear it down. We have juries because judges can’t be unbiased, Chad could’ve elected for a judge but I’m skeptical he’d actually fare better.
Oh, there's no reason to think a judge making a settlement rather than a jury trial would have gone any better. Judges like to be bleeding-hearts in some cases, particularly when they think state or government money is involved. Chad being a Marine Sergeant might even influence a judge against him, depending on the judge and their biases. But if we go by what we're told in the original post, any judge faced with a fuckup like Chad would probably hammer him just on general principles.
More options
Context Copy link
Wouldn't she be able to get that money anyway in a separate child-support proceeding? If so, there's no need to take that into account here.
Good point, hopefully someone in the juror room would’ve explained that to me or I’d be a bad juror. Although I still think Chad paying isn’t really an injustice for the other reasons.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link