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 -
The "beyond reasonable doubt" standard generally is in reference to doubt related to physical actions that occurred. "It's he-said, she-said and there's no cameras, so there's no way to know for sure what happened" is reasonable doubt.
How do you prove someone is sane? I don't even know how you prove someone is sane in the present moment beyond reasonable doubt. How do you prove someone was "sane" at the time of committing a crime beyond a reasonable doubt? And when the courts mean "sane" they mean "understood what they were doing was wrong."
Is it even possible? There's a tautology the defense can always pull - crime is irrational, if someone is committing a crime then they are showing they didn't fully understand what they were doing was wrong, therefore there is always reasonable doubt that the person was sane at the time of the crime.
In the case of Clancy, I think the fact that she concealed it on a phone call while she was in the process of doing it does show the preponderance of evidence shows she knows she was doing something wrong. It doesn't matter how much mental anguish she was in or how mental illness made it seem like killing her kids was preferable to not killing her kids. She was cognizant enough to understand that if others knew of her plans she would have been prevented from doing so. This indicates strongly that she was criminally sane.
But proving sanity beyond reasonable doubt... if the courts presume everyone is insane until proven otherwise how can we have a functional society? I must assume you are insane as well. I must assume the crossing guard and the teacher and the barista are all insane until proven otherwise. A presumption of sanity seems more conducive to a functional society.
More options
Context Copy link