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 -
That is not a plan.
That's the proposal. The answer to "I know this guy is going to do something bad but I can't prove it in court, so I want to take away his rights anyway" is "no". That's true whether it's liberty, speech, or guns.
That sounds like a plan. That sounds like you want this to be adjudicated in court instead. Explore that! Examine the consequences! Thank about it! Is it better? Worse?
I haven't seen good faith engagement from you in ages in this conversation. You clearly imply that some infringements on the right to bear arms is reasonable but you don't want to admit what that is then you later try and imply that you don't. Those are incompatible and you must pick.
Yes, I've said that an infringement is reasonable if it's a process similar to a felony conviction. And I've said that involuntary commitment is nothing like that. You keep telling me that then I have to solve the problem of people who were involuntarily committed and released buying guns and killing people, or accept that involuntary commitment loses gun rights. And I keep telling you that no, I do not have to solve that problem; that some bad people will get guns is an unavoidable consequence of having a right to keep and bear arms.
So you want to pay the taxes required to run a criminal grade trial on everyone who is involuntary committed so that they can have their guns taken away by a jury of their peers. This would be expensive in a pure trial sense and because it would be slow people would be held unnecessarily - if you can go home after 4 days because the medication worked but you need to stay in the hospital (or be dispo'ed to jail/prison) for ....however many weeks to months it takes to hold an actual trial.... isn't that a worse violation of your rights?
I have repeated this over and over.
If you take gun rights seriously you can
Leave him his guns or
Subject him to trial by jury of his peers.
That doing the first may result in more danger to other people does not rule it out.
Our judicial system is predicated on people not actually going to trial these days. Are you willing to accept the increased cost in taxes to do this, or more likely - a coercive structure that would necessitate a "plea deal equivalent." If so how much financial drain on society is acceptable to you?
What is special about jury trials over other processes? If someone does a bench trial is that acceptable? If a judge rubber stamps a psychiatrists recommendation (the likely outcome of a push for a trial process) is that acceptable? How do you want this to actually happen? This is not a simple logistical thing you are suggesting.
Being involuntarily committed requires some level of poor judgement and insight and lack of responsibility. Sometimes it is obviously disqualifying "I'm going to kill my neighbor doc" sometimes it is debatably disqualifying "I'm going to kill myself doc" (as feelings on suicide are complicated, even if our society has staked a view on this topic) sometimes it is something more like "I need you to calm down so I can help discharge you" "fuck you bitch cunt go fuck yourself" (in the setting of clear threat to self or others). A pro-2A MAXIMALIST might have no problem with someone who is overtly dangerous, foul tempered, and irresponsible owning a gun. Fine.
BUT.
You need a plan for individuals who are extremely likely to commit violence. Some patients are likely (where likely could means something like 30-70, not a baseline 2% risk of committing a murder) to commit violence. An example is ongoing escalatory stalking and harassment behavior. Seizing their guns and/or preventing them from buying guns gives the victim options while other social processes (like moving away, a restraining order and violations of the same leading to jail time) come into play.
What do you want to do to prevent Nybbler killing man from killing you. He gets discharged by the judge from the Psych hospital because he hasn't attacked anyone in the hospital. The Psychiatrist has a duty to warn by law to tell you hey I think this guy is at high risk of killing you. Guy goes home, everyone knows he is going to go kill you, how do you stop him? If you call the police they'll say "has he done anything yet?" or maybe "file a restraining order." That's shitty.
This is not theoretical. I've seen patient situations similar to this where the whole hospital goes "shit that guy is going to kill someone" but we can't do anything about it. Then we read about it on the news or treat the victim.
That's with the current state. It gets worse with guns involved.
This is a common sense restriction.
I suspect your issue is of the cathedral and woke politics - you don't trust Psychiatrists to appropriately judge if someone is really in need of an involuntary commitment. I'm sure they get it wrong sometimes just like felony convictions, but:
Can you produce any evidence that people getting guns being taken away from them because of involuntary commitment inappropriately is occurring with any degree of frequency?
Orthogonal. People who plead guilty to felonies still get their rights taken away, just as people who are convicted at trial do.
It actually doesn't, as in the case I know where someone took a prescribed drug which caused psychotic symptoms. But even if that were so, a lot of things do. Showing some level of poor judgement and insight and lack of responsibility is not per se grounds for revoking a fundamental right.
No, I actually don't. I do not need to create a group of second-class citizens who are allowed to do anything any normal citizen can do EXCEPT buy them a gun, and assign people to that group on the word of a group of medical professionals. I simply don't. And if you really were a strong advocate of the Second Amendment and were serious about the right to keep and bear arms, you wouldn't either. But instead, to you, while liberty of person is something that shouldn't just be taken away so lightly, guns are. So you are not a strong advocate of the Second Amendment.
If I weren't in New Jersey, I could shoot him when he shows up. Not 100% chance of success, but better than if he's coming to stab me and I'm unarmed.
And that is what all the gun-grabbers say.
I don't think we are going to get on the same page about this, but as a fact matter - if your friend was psychotic under the influence of a substance at that time he had poor judgement and insight, if they were committed involuntary (the correct response to oh holy shit the walls are talking to me is to you know, get help).
One of the challenges of managing society in general is what to do with people who are "fine" most of the time but dangerous while in a certain state (like decompensated mental illness, tripping balls, or just pissed off).
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link