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 not sure that the movie is supposed to be set in 1996: the jury selection in particular only really makes sense either before Batson or in an alternate universe where it never happened.
That said, while the KKK (or connected actual-fascist networks) had lost much of their ability to bring out attendees by the mid-90s, one of the bigger offshoot's national headquarters was in Tuscarolla Alabama until they lost it in a court case in the late 1980s, and they could get 50+ members to a Northern rally as late as 1997.
If it's intended to be in the mid-1980s, it probably is trying to draw comparisons more akin to 1987, where 400 and 1000 "counterprotesters" (not all KKK, but enough to start violent fights). The aftermath of the civil suits from that era was a lot of what broke what little institutional support and administrative power remained for the KKK and other related groups.
I don't have great info on whether 1990s or 1980s white jurors would necessarily side against an African-American man regardless of the evidence in Alabama -- it's kinda overlooked but Batson did actually plea guilty and probably did do the thefts in that case -- but in a case like this one where the defendant unquestionably committed the acts I think the question of sympathy would be more relevant. (Though I am pretty skeptical that the jurors would have been as blatantly racist: it's also notable that in the original book, the "now imagine she's white" came from a juror. While Grisham made the whole story up wholesale that's what he believed what plausible for 1984.)
Preeettty heavily.
The ricochet on the police officer would be pretty conventional assault in the first degree in Alabama, a Class B Felony. There's not much specific sentencing guidelines for Alabama, but "Not less than two (2) years and not more than twenty (20) years imprisonment in the state penitentiary, including hard labor and may include a fine not to exceed $30,000." seems like a reasonable band. Given the severity of the injury (the officer loses a leg) and its forseability (the shooter had no backstop, in a crowded environment), I'd error on the higher side, but the victim's forgiveness makes me hesitant to say the highest side.
For the rapists... I've spoken about the risks of "needed killing" being a meaningful defense, but the flip side of that is that some people... well, I would be quite happy if they repent their ways and work the rest of their lives to try to pay for the evil they've done... but I'm not optimistic. I'd prefer clean cases of self-defense or defense-of-others, more significantly because they protect victims, but also for philosophical reasons. But I'm hard-pressed to believe it'd be possible for the father in this situation to have done something wrong, rather than merely not maximally laudable.
The flip side is that one of the serious dangers to vigilantism is getting it wrong. It's easy in a movie, where we 'know' what happened at the crime, but that's not how the world works. And homicide doesn't have a statute of limitations. This combination has some bad policy ramifications -- it's 'better' to try and find not-guilty a good man, and worse to try a case that risks having jeopardy attach before information shakes loose -- but I'm not sure there's a better one.
Per the novel's Wikipedia page, the events are set in 1984, two years before Batson.
...and I see that you sort of mention that with "plausible for 1984".
Yeah, apologies, should have spelled that out. The movie is based on a book published in 1989, which itself claims it was 'inspired by' a case that John Grisham had seen in 1984, though very few details or even broad strokes actually matched.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link