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)
You certainly don't seem like you're unbiased in describing this situation, which makes it difficult to take your account seriously.
In this article it says they're going to charge the pro-Palestinian guy after it became apparent that he would survive.
In terms of self-defense, there should obviously be some limits to prevent society degenerating into one where people try to bait their enemies into attacking them so they get a free pass at murder. See Cartman shooting Tolkien for a comedic example.
It comes down to proportionality here. On one hand you could say humans are intensely, catastrophically fragile. You could scare/startle a person, which could cause them to slip and fall on a jagged piece of cement that severs their spine and kills them instantly. In the same vein, a kid throwing a rock or wielding a stick could be "deadly" in unlucky circumstances. But under reasonable circumstances I don't think that justifies blasting them with a gun.
In this situation, if anything the fall was the most likely to injure. The pro-Israel guy had friends there so I doubt there was a reasonable expectation of getting strangled or anything like that, so him reaching for his gun was at least somewhat excessive, if not strongly excessive. That said, there should be some allowance for the ambiguity of the situation (shock, adrenaline, etc.)... which is what seems like is going to happen. The state is going to charge him, but not with the maximal punishment like attempted murder or even (according the second article you posted) ยง 15E, Assault and Battery by Discharging a Firearm which would carry a maximum of a 20 year sentence.
It seems like the state is doing a reasonably good job here, although it would be prudent to wait for more info. Though, of course if there's a bunch of info incriminating the pro-Israel guy then we probably wouldn't hear about it on this site, as the entire thing would just be ignored.
Consensus accusations are somehow even more obnoxious than consensus building. We have literal holocaust deniers here, the accusation that we don't allow or have anti-Israel takes or news posted is indefensible.
This whole thread started from a pretty flagrant violation of this rule, which seems to be in complete abeyance at this point.
The vast majority of posts on the Motte are between right-wing takes and far-right-wing takes. If there was a generous population of pro-Palestinian people here then maybe your argument would have some legs to stand on. But most people are treating this as a discussing of 2A rights and whether it's justified to shoot violent leftists. The notion that some Holocaust deniers balances that out is just goofy.
Of course this is primarily a 2A discussion, there is no new angle on the PvI conflict out of this. We also have plenty of left of center people here, just not lot of progressives. Have you considered that the "pro Palestinian" position just isn't very strong?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link