site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35021 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 3, 2023

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.

12
Top Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The problem in this case for “looking for an excuse” which is legal is you better have damn good video evidence. As is we don’t know if the victim didn’t point the gun at him, larped a bit with his gun, or really threatens him with it.

As is we don’t know if the victim didn’t point the gun at him, larped a bit with his gun, or really threatens him with it.

This is called “reasonable doubt” and means that the defendant should be found not guilty.

If that’s the standard then I’d probably lean not guilty.

But from the evidence I think there’s a 50% chance or somewhat more he murdered this guy because he wanted to.

Once more, there is a difference between “hoping to be in a situation where one can use deadly force” and “provoking”.

The first is still self defense.

Also, there is a difference between talking tough to buddies and wanting to go murdering. This guy wasn’t randomly driving around. He was ubering. He had just dropped off a fare. Using his “shit talking” to prove his state of mind at the particular moment is a leap.

Agree. After posting this then reading more. Here’s my gut feeling for what happened.

The victim raised his gun a little and talked a little tough. The shooter probably didn’t actually fear for his life but saw the opportunity to shoot and claim self defense. The victim may have actually fully pointed his gun at the shooter.

I think either legally or in the eyes of god this guy did murder someone without an excuse but legally might be not guilty.

I just have a feeling this guy was shooting the second he thought he had a legal right to as oppose to not wanting to shoot.

I said in my initial thing a lot of the problems here is the state abdicating their monopoly on violence.

The victim raised his gun a little and talked a little tough. The shooter probably didn’t actually fear for his life but saw the opportunity to shoot and claim self defense. The victim may have actually fully pointed his gun at the shooter.

You're now at the point that your "gut feeling" says that a guy having a rifle pointed at him by a hostile person is not in fear for his life. I think your gut needs a check.

Yet the burden of proof isn’t on the defendant. If the only video evidence we have is someone pointing a gun at him, I’m at least having responsible doubt…

Actually it is or it’s 50-50 depending how you read these Under Texas law, you need to prove the following elements to successfully claim self-defense:

You used an adequate amount of force.

You reasonably believed that the use of force was immediately necessary.

You did not provoke the other person.

You were not attempting to commit a crime when using force.

I think for this case he had to reasonably believe a use of force is necessary. I’m not sure how that compares to reasonable doubt of guilt.

No, in Texas, as in pretty much every state, once the defendant has produced some evidence that he acted in self-defense, the prosecution has the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did not act in self-defense. Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910 (Tx Ct of Crim App, 1991); Hernandez v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 910 (Tx Ct of App, 2020).

Then if that’s standard he’s not guilty but I still believe at a greater than 50% chance that this guy probably was wanting a chance to kill a protestor and took his chance.

"Hoping he would be the victim of an unjustified assault" doesn't make it into a justified assault.

It doesn't matter whether the assault was justified -- note that it is perfectly possible for both sides in a conflict to be acting in self-defense. That is, it is perfectly possible that both sides to honestly and reasonably believe that the other poses a risk of imminent danger. It doesn't matter whether the danger actually exists. And, if I am not actually in fear, it doesn't matter that a reasonable person would have been in fear, nor that the other person was acting unlawfully.

Then you would have qualified for the jury. But just going out where trouble happens hoping that trouble finds you isn't "provocation" according to the law.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats