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 exactly are you disagreeing with? My information comes from working with police as a states attorney for a period of time and working as clerk for a judge. Sex crime is very hard to investigate because a lot of it looks like normal courtship just a little on steroids. Which also is often non-criminal. Also, testing strips exist, but mass distribution wouldn't work, they'd expire just like PH strips do.
The reluctance thing is probably real, but most police I've interacted with say this is victim led. The police, unfortunately, are very resource constrained, so complaining witnesses need to be on their game, or the police don't have the resources to extract info from them and follow up. People look at prosecutors having 99% conviction records and don't look any further, they have that because they reject 90% of their cases that aren't simple possession. I've seen people blow 3x the legal limit and get off on a DUI simply by being persistent and thus only 3 of the 4 necessary witnesses are in court on the day of trial.
Imagine the work needed to prosecute these kind of cases. First, our victim needs to come in quickly to report to preserve the evidence. Often they do not. Second we need techs actually capable of doing so. Often they are not on hand. Third we need to test that. Often that is not available. Fourth they need to be confident in their story. In almost all cases, they are not. Fifth we need to get corroborating witnesses or a confession. The former are rare, as are the latter. Sixth we need to assemble all this into a coherent case. Often it falls apart. One easy fail is the verification of physical evidence fails. Or the girl herself collapses under cross.
What is the solution? IMO it is that consent is not a good mediator for sexual encounters, never has been, and likely never will be. Instead we should use a visible public acts standard. Things like marriage, shutting a door, etc are should be what is important in sexual offense law, not subjective things like consent and intoxication.
The claim that there's not much police could do, even in principle, to fight sex crimes.
And it feels like your response here points out about a half a dozen ways in which we could give the police more funding, change the priorities o prosecutors, and do public outreach to help victims come forward sooner with better evidence, which would let the police do more.
Those are the kinds of things I'm advocating.
What exactly would be those half dozen ways? All those steps that are hard to do will cost a LOT to improve the situation at each step by even 5%.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link