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 don't understand the signed victim statement to the police. It seems to really undermine the case, assuming the prosecutor's statement accurately summarizes it. It was done voluntarily working with the campus police, then she was given a chance to review it and apply edits before signing under penalty of perjury.
But the DA (several attorneys in the office) failed to, even assuming it completely true, find all the required elements of the purported crimes. Assuming the summary is accurate, this seems a really big own goal. Why submit such a thing at all? It was voluntary. I assume she didn't have a lawyer (I suppose "always have a lawyer when talking to police" remains evergreen advice), and either didn't know herself, or none of the parties she was working with bothered to tell her of the required elements. I could see some claim of impartially not prompting for details, maybe, but surely they were asking loads of questions about these details for their investigation ("were you coerced?"), and I'd expect at least someone friendly to make it known. Was she trying to claim "I went to the police" without really intending charges to stick? I'm really uncertain.
I can at least sympathize that she has probably gone through a lot socially and self-imposed as a result of the events in question. The law doesn't give you a right to see the party who wronged you punished, unfortunately (not sure I'd want that generally anyway). And this case exists in a blurry line between longstanding puritanical and libertine post-sexual revolution norms: plenty of naive readers will think no woman would ever consent to that (probably few, but there are, uh, documented examples for better or worse). Or that any intoxication implies no consent --- if we jailed everyone that had sex drunk, I'm not sure how many would be many left. Others will assume she knew the long term implications of those choices. It's a great setup for a scissor statement, and I'm not even sure I have an answer myself.
IMO it's reasonable to let the justice system sort it out the specific case, but I think the meta-principles could use more open discussion.
Reading around I heard this girl also said stuff like «back in the medieval this was normal» to the boys whiles doing stuff. So she's clearly at Cornell on something other than academic merit.
Horny nerd girls with wildly all over the place values and legitimately good grades aren't that rare. I had an occasional hookup who I could honestly see this sort of thing happening to since she was bigly into the idea of group sex/cnc/free use who is now a fairly high powered lawyer and did fine academically.
Now you gotta go and find out:
More options
Context Copy link
I am not saying that only stupid girls are horny. Just that this one was not that bright. Not because she had sex but because of her dumb statements as well as her apparent failure to understand what she was doing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link