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'm generally pretty skeptical of jailhouse commentary. On the other hand, the case doesn't really rest on it: the possession of stolen goods and knowledge of undisclosed facts is pretty clear and, in this case, difficult to come up with an alternative explanation. You end up needing Asaro, Wiliams ex-girlfriend, or some unknown third party working with both Asaro and Williams, to have been the real murderer, or you need a pretty wide breadth of police conspiracy, or both. There's ways to stitch these possibilities together, but they depend on incredibly complex chains of counterfactuals.
((And the media coverage is absolutely awful; it's not surprising that the Innocence Project is just outright wishcasting, but a lot of other shops are repeating that version without any mention of the official trial records contradicting them over and over.))
On the gripping hand, the standard isn't Ace Attorney Find The Real Murder, or even innocence, just to find reasonable doubt. But... this is still pretty weak sauce to find doubt in, and low enough a bar to sound like 'any imaginable alternative'. Especially when fresh appeals are being furnished decades later, there's always going to be some new technology not used, or tangentially-related person having second thoughts, or new angle to approach, or snafu to be highlighted.
((And way too many of these cases are like this. Every death penalty case not involving a spree shooter gets a fandom -- I've seen people defend killers who literally asked for the death penalty -- and even the most highly promoted ones Don't Look Great Bob. Actual plausible cases of actually sketchy convictions exist, and boy does Scalia's corpse spin like a motor when you point it out, but the degree of difference is vast.))
Maybe there's an argument for such higher standards that are not just a generic argument against the death penalty, but in many ways that's scarier: the increasing political battle against life without parole, sentencing with parole, mandatory minima, and of crushing sentences for particularly egregious crimes have a pretty obvious end result if the argument generalizes.
More options
Context Copy link