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 -
Plaintiffs want to bring all sorts of bonkers cases all the time, with no regard for whether they are "clear" or even able to succeed at all. Most potential plaintiffs who reach out to law firms regard lawyers as a "get me money because something bad happened" button, and their definitions of "something bad" can be...idiosyncratic.
Plaintiff-side lawyers, on the other hand, want to bring cases which will win quickly and cheaply, and for a large amount of money against a solvent deep-pocketed defendant. This is because most plaintiffs firms take a percentage of any settlement or judgment in lieu of hourly pay from plaintiffs who aren't able to really pay lawyers' high wages in the first place. Whether the win comes as a judgment or from a settlement is of no matter. Whether the matter will be "clear" to any laypeople reading any resultant decision is a tertiary concern at best.
The system itself wants parties to settle cases before having to actually hold expensive and time-intensive trials. The entire civil procedure system is designed to make trials and judicial opinions as rare as possible. As a result, the vast, vast, vast majority of legal disputes are resolved without judicial rulings.
On the rare occasions judges do tender rulings, there is a trend for the decisions to be accessible to the laity (or, if you're a critic of the trend, to pander to the mob's prejudices and/or stoke political outrage). However, most legal issues that cases turn on just aren't that interesting to most people, because they concern weird edge cases of obscure procedural or doctrinal rules (the big obvious cases all get settled because everyone knows how they'll wind up and sees no need to incur expense just to get the result everyone already knew would happen).
More options
Context Copy link