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 -
What would a response with substance look like, in your opinion? How else is one supposed to say "that's not the law" if it is, in fact, not the law? The judge doesn't have to explain the entire legal theory to a layperson understanding, they just have to accurately understand and rule on what is before them. If you disagree with the ruling, then you just disagree. That doesn't mean the right to appeal was violated.
This proves too much. He would also still get paid even if the defendant didn't go to prison. By this standard, every prosecutor has a conflict of interest and therefore no cases can be successfully adjudicated to this rigorous standard, so we would have to let everyone go.
That's not fishing. A fishing expedition is when you investigate someone with zero probable cause for a particular crime. Interviewing people related to the case is just investigation. How else are they supposed to investigate? Just make shit up?
Ok. Please enlighten me as to how they violate the Eighth.
I have no idea what "high law" is and you don't explain it or "low law" very well. Then for good measure you throw in "middle law" later down the paragraph and you don't even attempt to explain that. What does it mean to be "prior to particular national law"?
I fail to see the difference between saying "this is bad and violates high law" versus "this is bad and violates the constitution".
That's not good enough to not be some sort of arbitrary exception. Sure, production of CP directly harms victims, but mere possession of it doesn't.
That's even more of an arbitrary exception than what I was talking about.
Again, I have to tell you: No, you can't. By the reasonable person standard, saying nigger is not an offensive obscenity that should result in jail time. Otherwise, I would be enjoying prison along with every other Kiwi Farms user for how many times we have said nigger on the Internet.
No? In general, though, criminals usually have their rights taken away after due process.
I bring up Shiloh Hendrix because that's the kind of stuff I see a legitimate argument for worrying about. As a nigger sayer, I would like to be able to say nigger however and whenever I want. I have no interest in child fucking, so if bad things happen to child fuckers, I don't worry unless they could affect me. There's things like age verification laws you could talk about that directly affect everyone regardless of how many children they've fucked. All this stuff about how this child fucker got jailed and maybe there's some dirty stuff that happened in the legal proceedings is just not very convincing to me. You might as well be telling me how Anders Breivik didn't get PS5 privileges in his Norwegian prison or whatever.
I can grant for the sake of argument that the child fucker's case maybe had some problems and he may or may not be entitled to legal relief. That doesn't really have any implications for me. The things you have pointed out don't make me worried about my ability to say nigger. They are nowhere near the list of my concerns for free speech and freedom on the Internet.
The actual things I see being a huge problem are payment processors (who can debank anyone with zero due process or appeal) and the DMCA (already a terrible piece of law that effectively mandates censorship before due process, it's also a very good doxing tool). There are other things as well, but the common thread is that one problem originates from there not being enough law (payment processors are basically entirely unregulated on top of being a monopoly that would make Standard Oil blush) and the other originates from an entirely different area of law (copyright, already known to be extremely terrible). I really don't see any threats or problems that originate from the obscenity exception alone. You're just saying that they could, but they haven't, and I think it's very unlikely.
Oh and by the way, things are 10x worse in Europe, where they arrest (more) people for social media posts, especially when those posts talk about being raped by grooming gangs. You claim that Europeans feel shame and Americans don't, and Europeans consider how the law might be used against them and Americans don't, and I just don't see it! There is no possible way a site like the Kiwi Farms could ever be hosted in Europe! Ever! Your entire argument for why America is somehow worse and will have hate speech laws in 10 years is to ignore Europe's hate speech laws, point to an arrest for political speech that would never have happened in the US, then wax poetic about an American pedophile being jailed. I really don't get it.
You can argue whatever you want. That doesn't mean that your argument is correct on its legal merits.
No one's insulting you.
I'm sure I could find a lot of people horrified and offended by the nigger word. Yet saying nigger is not illegal in the United States, and I am not in jail for saying it. Nor do I expect it to be illegal anytime soon, or even any time in the next 10 years. So no, my argument is not that "quantity makes right" either. Try again.
More options
Context Copy link