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 -
You're correct to point out that my answer was incomplete. The default state is sovereign immunity, where anything the government does is by definition not illegal or criminal. Of course, governments can choose to waive immunity, which is why people are allowed to sue a city bus for running them over or something. For criminal prosecutions, there is a legal obstacle and a practical one. Sovereign immunity protects criminal prosecutions, as is the case in a recent SCOTUS case involving prosecution of a Turkish bank and as Nicaraguan President Manuel Noriega tried to have happen. Those examples are both foreign sovereigns, and the law for domestic sovereigns is a bit more complicated and depends on the jurisdiction. Sometimes criminal laws create an intentional double standard depending on whether the person committing the act is an agent of the state or not, as was the case until recently in Washington state where a police officer charged with murder required the prosecutor to prove "evil intent" (something not required when prosecuting a peasant). Beyond the state-specific carve-outs, there's the practical reality of governments generally being reluctant to punish one of their own. This reluctance is sharpest with police officers given the intimate working relationship they have with prosecutors. It still happens (as it did with Chauvin) but only in extreme circumstances, not as a matter of course.
Those reasons explain why criminal prosecutions are both legally and practically rare, something which would be politically difficult to change, because why would the government choose to ruin a good thing? At this point the only alternative method of redress if a government official commits a wrong is a civil suit. §1983 and similar laws explicitly waive sovereign immunity to allow civil suits, and made the field wide open. The text plainly stated that any citizen could sue every official acting under color of any law for any violations of any rights. And as relative outsiders, civil attorneys wouldn't have the same reluctance about going after "one of their own". That's at least the ideal, except as you saw, Qualified Immunity has significantly gutted §1983's previously open field to the point where it's functionally worthless.
Qualified immunity doesn't explain the whole story, but it is a significant reason behind the nobility's lack of accountability.
That seems like a gross overstatement, given the number of lawyers who seem to make a good living filing 1983 actions, including actions for police misconduct.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link