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 saw this explanation somewhere else but it's actually very straightforward.
Burglary is a crime of entering someone's house in order to commit some other crime. To prove that someone is a burglar you just need to show that they entered someone's house and that they intended to commit some other crime. It's okay if some people on the jury think the burglar was going to commit theft and some people on the jury think the burglar was going to assault the homeowner. The burglar himself may not even have been sure which he was going to do---he just had a crowbar and was playing it by ear.
Similarly here. Falsifying business records in the first degree is when you falsify business records with the intent to commit some other crime. As with burglary not everyone needs to agree on what the other crime was.
I find burglary very non-analogous, it being a malum in se crime. But even then if you think its a good analogy a person who is charged with burglary is allowed a defense along the lines of "it was cold outside, I was going to freeze to death, I broke in to be warm, there was no intent to commit a felony therein." Trump had an expert witness lined up that said there was no crime being covered up, and he was not allowed to testify.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link