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 -
Due process is reciprocal. The court presumes innocence by giving the accused the opportunity to defend themselves. That defense must be substantiated, claiming "I have an alibi" and then failing to provide that alibi is not a defense, and the court will not treat that claim as evidence. Same for immigration. Immigration enforcement presumes innocence by giving the accused the opportunity to provide documentation. In practice, any person who cannot provide such documentation is here illegally. Show a state ID, you're good, assuming it isn't from a state that issues IDs to illegals. "Difficulty in acquiring an ID" is, same as voting, inadequate. Functioning states do not express special concern for those so lazy they can't be bothered to get something so universally required as ID. That is highly aberrant behavior, it's something deserving institutionalization or apathy. Relevant for the one valid defense, "I am chronically homeless." Okay, permanently institutionalize them.
This is not how the presumption of innocence works. The presumption of innocence means an accusation is not sufficient; the state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt even if you make no attempt to defend yourself (beyond a not guilty plea) at all.
Immigration cases are not criminal, and work differently, but still there is a burden on the state to demonstrate you are here illegally even if you make no attempt to defend yourself.
That's not how presumption of innocence works in theory. It is how it works in practice, just look at the number of juries who convict on obviously ideological lines (not to mention it's not even close to the standard held in many civil suits). That burden the state does indeed have of meeting a preponderance of evidence is met in full when dealing with a person of obviously foreign birth who cannot provide proof of their legal residence. That itself, as in even otherwise legal aliens failing to keep identifying documents on their person, is a crime.
It's not realistic or justified to expect ICE to prove the citizenship or lack thereof for every person they apprehend. Not stop, apprehend. Fortunately, the claim of epidemic-level lack of documentation among citizens is even less realistic. It's why every individual illegal alien deported from this country doesn't receive a full jury trial. ID requirements are ubiquitous, people who don't provide them, can't provide them, and that's all ICE needs. They don't need a reason to deport someone, they need a reason not to.
It's certainly true that the presumption of innocence is often violated. That does not make "giving the accused an opportunity to defend themselves" into a presumption of innocence. If you must defend yourself against a bare accusation in order to be found not guilty, you have in fact been presumed guilty.
As for civil cases, "presumption of innocence" is a criminal law concept, not a civil one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link