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 -
In Newton, Massachusetts, a pro-Palestinian man got into a shouting match with a group of pro-Israeli demonstrators across a busy street. For some reason, though he was mostly exchanging words with a woman, he ran across the street and tackled a man named Scott Hayes, who was also part of the demonstration. While he had Hayes on the ground, Hayes -- who had a legal gun -- shot him in the stomach. Two other pro-Israeli demonstrators pulled the man off Hayes, and he was later brought to a hospital.
Hayes was arrested and charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and Violation of a Constitutional Right Causing Injury. The only justification I can come up with for the latter is that it is the constitutional right of pro-Palestinian people to attack people supporting Israel.
Hayes will certainly plead self defense, but self-defense expert Andrew Branca at Legal Insurrection says it won't work. Basically the government's view is if someone has tackled you and is beating on you, it's not sporting to fight back with a weapon (i.e. deadly force). Think of government as the two guys who hold you while their buddy punches you.
This was all captured on video (linked in the Legal Insurrection article); there's really no doubt as to the course of events.
To add insult to injury, the pro-Palestinian man has not been charged.
(Hayes, BTW, is reportedly not Jewish)
I can understand where the motivation comes from for charging him. Removing the political aspect, if there's a bar fight, as a society we don't want the altercation to progress to shooting. And morally in the bar fight situation, I would think it's inappropriate to escalate to shooting, even if you're being tackled to the cement and the other person instigated it. Not that I have any real sympathy for the person shot: seems to be a FAFO situation.
What gets me is the pro-Palestinian not also getting charged. They seem basically equally at fault, engaging in potentially deadly escalations. Give both a misdemeanor for disturbing the public peace.
I think that this is a value judgement of society, and I am not sure I agree. I think that once you rule out escalation, the consequences of punching someone at a bar are rather limited. I mean, if you seriously injure or kill your victim, you will go to prison, and if you lose the fight then you might get beaten up, but I would expect that many non-consensual bar fights do not even make in in the police statistics.
Every bar should be free to declare itself a free-for-all dojo. Sign a waiver, enjoy your drink and punch anyone whose face you don't like, if you kill someone we will sort it out just like we would with MMA. Probably not a great place to pick up women, though.
But absent such a consent, I take a very dim view on violence. If you are a adult person of sound mind who was not drugged against their consent, and you think that violence is an acceptable solutions to whatever the fuck your problem is, I have very little sympathy. If the alternatives are that you get to beat up people until you finally maim someone and end up in prison, or you are either motivated enough by the threat of deadly retaliation to keep your fucking barbaric urges under control, or otherwise your third bar fight ends up with you bleeding to death with a punctured lung, then I will very much prefer the latter world.
Totally agree. Prosecutional discretion seems bad in this case. Perhaps the old English system where anyone could bring criminal charges would be better here.
But even without the politics, the incentives for the DA are very bad here. They want to win the high profile case, not some minor battery case. And if the defense can point out that the victim was already convicted for battery, that will lower their chances of winning the big case. So they throw that case under the bus, justice be damned.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link