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 -
If qualified immunity protects government officials who knowingly break the law, but who do so in a way that hasn’t yet been ruled to clearly violate their victims’ constitutional rights (e.g., police who steal $225,000 while on the job), wouldn’t you agree that a sane legal system should likewise protect non-government officials in a similar way?
Leaving aside the fact that, by definition, qualified immunity does not protect against violations of established law ("We need not determine whether the complaint plausibly alleges the violation of a constitutional right, because Mr. Montgomery fails to show that the officers' actions violated clearly established law." Montgomery v. Gerdjikian (no. 22-1126, 10th Circuit 2023)), and that QI only applies to civil suits alleging violations of constitutional rights, which with very few exceptions can't be be violated by non-governmental actors, this is a criminal case. Qualified immunity does not protect officials from criminal prosecution.
As an aside, I am no fan of current QI jurisprudence, but there are perfectly legitimate reasons for providing QI re suits under Section 1983, which allows a successful plaintiff to recover his attorney's fees from the defendant. Make it too easy to sue under Section 1983, and no govt official will ever even think to look cross-eyed at anyone with money. And, btw, "qualified immunity, as a federal doctrine, does not protect government officials from liability under state law." Mack v. Williams, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 86 (Nev: Supreme Court 2022), citing many cases.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link