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 said, "Absolutely not," in response to the question of "Should [this] absolve him of responsibility?" It absolutely does not absolve him of responsibility.
However, it does seem like there were a lot of failures from other people that lead to this happening to Brown. The insane asylums closed down before he was even born. He was allowed to walk free from jail many times when it was clear that something like this was inevitable. He was born with mental illness, which can't be his fault, strictly speaking.
I would definitely support some kind of law that held people accountable for going under sentencing guidelines if there is a reoffence. Don't know if it would be jail time, but victims should certainly be able to sue judges for this.
I think I am realizing that "Victim of Circumstance" doesn't mean what I thought it did. I saw it used in all kinds of situations where the "victim" was obviously vicious and committing severe moral faults, so I assumed the definition required that. But it seems that people think "victim" must mean "innocent."
When you say that someone is a "victim" of something you are saying that their situation is not one of choice but rather something that has been inflicted or forced upon them. This is why there is a taboo against victim blaming.
Decarlos Brown can not be both "a victim" by the common understanding of the word, and responsible. This begs the question; If Brown is not responsible, who is?
God, nature, the criminal justice system, molecules bouncing together in a predetermined way, take your pick.
Except I already said several times on this thread that I do think Brown was responsible so I don't know why you keep asking me this.
I'm trying to explain to you why people naturally infer that victim must mean innocent.
I always assumed, by the context is is often used in, "Victim of Circumstance" means a person victimized by who they are and how their life has gone. A short person unable to play professional basketball is a victim of circumstance because they cannot control how tall they were. Brown cannot control how crazy he is, therefore he's a victim of circumstance. This is not mutually exclusive of him being 100% responsible for murder. I don't think I can explain it in any more granularity. If this isn't what "Victim of Circumstance' means then I apologize for using the wrong word, but I don't think we disagree on anything substantial here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would put it like this:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link