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 believe that is the case. Were that true, if you and I conspired to deprive my neighbor of his right to vote by kidnapping him on election day, we would be innocent if it turned out he was not registered to vote, or was not a citizen. But that is a defense of factual impossibility, and factual impossibility is not a defense to conspiracy. US v. Williams, 553 US 285, 300 (2008) ["As with other inchoate crimes — attempt and conspiracy, for example — impossibility of completing the crime because the facts were not as the defendant believed is not a defense."].
Well, it seems to me that if you are claiming that this is an exception to the rule that applies to all other inchoate crimes, you have a pretty heavy burden of proof. At the very least, you need some authority that language like "a person" or 'secured to him" actually creates an additional element.
PS: See United States v. Morado, 454 F. 2d 167 (5th Cir. 1972): "we will dispose of a single point that will help to both clarify and abbreviate the remainder of our discussion: whether or not the appellants successfully conspired is not at issue in this case, and a showing that fraud was actually perpetrated upon legitimate voters in the election is not a requisite element of the proof. The government did not need to show that the election occurred, that vote dilution was accomplished, or that a single illegitimate ballot was cast." This was a 18 U.S.C.A. § 241 case. If the govt need not show that fraud was actually perpetrated, it seems unlikely that they have to show that a particular voter was targeted. Not impossible, but again, all the authority seems to be against your position. Of course, there might be authority to support your position, but I really think at this point you need to cite some. Otherwise, you are just asserting your personal opinion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link