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 realize this isn’t a top quality post, so I accept the judgement of the mods, but a mistrial has been declared in the case of Lindsay Clancy. Shes the woman in Massachusetts who admitted to killing her kids, but claims she was suffering from postpartum psychosis.
The jury deliberated for seven days. Apparently, it came down to one male juror holding out against the other (nine female, two male) jurors. The belief is that he wanted to vote guilty. The jury reported to the judge that the holdout refused to follow the law regarding reasonable doubt, and the defense tried to have him removed. The judge refused. This morning, the judge declared a mistrial but gave defense one hour to get a stay from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Predictably, the online discourse is off the walls. X lifts the holdout up as a hero, while Reddit believes he (we know it’s a male because the defense said so) is an MRA/red piller and needs to have his phone searched.
Personally, I think she’s guilty of premeditated, cold blooded murder. That said, I get the postpartum argument, but am horrified by the defense of her and holding her up as some kind of hero.
Did anyone watch the case? Was this a reasonable outcome?
Massachusetts places the burden on the state to prove a person claiming insanity as a defense was actually of sound mind during the crime. If I assume a jury makes an honest attempt to abide by these standards it seems like a really high bar to prosecute. Anti-depressants come with disclaimers of side effects, several include chance of psychosis, and that alone sounds like a reasonable enough reason to doubt a person is guilty of a crime according to the law. It's on the label. There's documented cases. Why is the state so sure someone didn't experience a side effect when the state wasn't there? Postpartum conditions, as I understand they argued, also have a chance of degrading into psychosis something witnesses testified(?) she had. Given that, were I in the position of a jury honestly attempting to apply the law, the state would have to demonstrate a lot for me to no longer consider these as plausible alternatives to the explanation that, no, her actions can only be considered as guilty of murder or manslaughter. Clancy had a lot more than a single prescription to rely upon for her defense. The state might need something that nears a confession to get a jury following the rules to convict her given all these reasonable reasons to doubt her sanity at the time.
Also, is there a good reason to allow cameras in the courtroom to live broadcast criminal trials? I think you should be able show up, bring a pen and paper, and confer with any associated press outside the courthouse to cover live proceedings, but no live feed from inside the courtroom. All I can think of is that the exposure to the attention economy could raise public accountability to proceedings-- since nobody wants to read to follow a story anymore perhaps we should broadcast all proceedings in that case. I think a judge should choose whether to sequester a jury and have cameras inside the courtroom, or choose not to not sequester a jury and disallow any live film coverage.
If we believe SSRI and other anti depressants are powerful enough that they can cause you to plan out and murder your three kids but lack mental capacity, then it seems to me anyone taking them should be considered outside their right mind.
Accordingly, they should lose all general rights of adults (eg voting).
It can just be a rare side effect. Alcohol can also induce psychosis, as can weed and many other drugs. But the effect is rare enough that we assume even frequent drinkers to have a consistent grasp on reality.
Right but if a drunk driver kills someone, they can't claim the alcohol was the cause either.
Wouldn't it be considered manslaughter rather than murder, with drunk driving as an extra charge? I doubt that Clancy being convicted for manslaughter would be considered a good result here.
No, thanks to the MADD mothers, drinking while driving is considered premeditation in itself in many states.
Probably the least onerous alcohol-related law change forced through by female activists, though that's a low bar.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link