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 wonder how much age plays into it: if older people disproportionately serve on juries, then women would also disproportionately serve, even if serving rate conditioned on age was equal.
This struck me, from the Irish Times article:
What's going on here (assuming that rape convictions aren't so rare that 17 non-convictions are possibly noise)? Maybe when there are men in a group, people fall in line behind a leader, but if there are not, you end up with egalitarian jockeying for social position that manifests as hung juries?
Probably need more actual studies to be able to productively speculate, though.
Ireland is a very socially conservative place that still has a strong religious streak. Women in these kinds of societies are much more censorious of other women's sexuality. Men are also much more systemizing and willing to argue for the 'right' answer, even if it is socially undesirable.
I was going to say 'no, Ireland very much is not that' and then I saw 2009. Yes, religious women would probably not vote to convict of rape of a woman who willingly went into a hotel room alone with a man, and most rape cases are things like that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Part of me is wondering if there's some insane sort of reverse causation somewhere - I'm not sure if Ireland has peremptory strikes, but if it does the use of them could plausibly correlate somewhat with case strength.
More options
Context Copy link
Women generally don't fall as easily for other women's bullshit in my experience.
I'm not implying all those rape cases are false allegations. I don't know how to explain the complete lack of conviction by the female dominated juries in that study.
Aren’t majorities of rape cases ‘they had sex, he thought she consented, she thinks they didn’t’? Wouldn’t be shocked if that strikes uninvolved normie women as face-saving BS on the part of a woman making a bad decision.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
IIRC female hiring managers have stronger anti-woman biases than male hiring managers do. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true for jurors as well.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link