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 -
Problem is that we were strictly instructed that we could not charge the plaintiff with anything. There was a legal form we had to fill out. It's strictly Chad -> Becky damages and charges affecting Chad only. I agree that Becky probably committed criminal forgery but based on our instructions there was nothing we could charge her with. He'd have to counter sue, which I don't think would be our jury.
Not if she was listed on the personal account and given access with his permission would be my guess. Don't give people your bank accounts sounds like a pretty basic common sense idea.
This was actually my stance. The "benefit" bit he said under oath sounded suspiciously like something you get tithing church members to say. They don't believe God/Church will literally under contract pay them back, but the good deed of doing this act with benefit them. I wanted to award her half, I think she benefited from the divorce, I think he did too, sounds like a fair split. This was a very contentious argument, the karens wanted to give her 100% and refused to compromise on 75% at all.
I was able to talk them into this. but once they circled back to giving her a flat percentage of what she was asking for it essentially abrogated this.
More options
Context Copy link