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 -
On the Abbot pardon and I think he’s in a tough place. I kept finding articles like this:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/will-texas-governor-pardon-army-sergeant-sandbagged-soros-da-self-defense-shooting
I keep seeing this of evidence withheld in the grand jury. Probably true. But I kept noticing I never heard anything about the jury trial. Suddenly got around to doing some googling and came up with this:
https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2023-04-07/might-have-to-kill-a-few-people/
He had some really bad texts about wanting to kill protestors and triggering self defense. The first article does seem like a gun was at a minimum partially raised against him. So looks to me like he at a minimum tried to find himself in that situation and then found an obliging gun toting person raising it at him.
Thoughts
I don’t like overturning a jury verdict and especially since it was in Texas even though it was Austin I don’t think he got railroaded. And I’m saying it as someone who thinks Chauvin deserves a pardon.
Kind of looks like mutual combat which Chicago actually declared on a case. Not sure if that law is in place in Texas but reading the statute in Texas for stand your ground you can’t provoke the other side before declaring self defense. So even then you would get an issue of whether his driving constituted provocation.
It’s largely better when the government maintains a monopoly use of violence. This was not the case in 2020. A lot of these cases to me looks like the government abdicated its monopoly and created The Purge like situations where either said could claim mutual combat.
Even for my ideological enemies I feel it’s important to give them justice when wronged. I wouldn’t have hated a not guilty verdict on the grounds I can’t sort out the self defense claim. But from what I can see it looks like a reasonable decision.
It does not not make him look good, but the evidence still suggests his life was in danger and he acted in self defense. It's the same thing as the Rittenhouse case or George Zimmerman. Putting oneself into danger or risk taking behavior does not invalidate the self defense argument.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#C
9.31.2
Did not provoke the person whom the force was used
So I think the case comes down to did he knowingly try to provoke the encounter. Did he speed into the crowd too fast. And where his prior texts of talking about triggering an encounter gives a lot of information on his state of mind.
It's hard to say, which is why this is so hotly contested still.
He drove his car into the crowd at 10mph, but slowed down, stopping and then was approached by Garrett Foster, who may have raised his gun at him just 18 inches from the driver side window. Being an Uber driver, his motive could have been he was in a hurry.
as someone on twitter notes:
I looked into it more. I think before provoking you have to asks whether the victim ever actually crossed into threatening. There’s no video evidence. A bad picture with gun not entirely parallel. Basically a he said/she said. And I’m not sure on the legal definition he needs for proving self defense. It’s a different standard I believe than reasonable doubt.
With him sitting their 6 seconds I’m not seeing the provocation before the issue now.
I agree on the not loaded. He wouldn’t know that and if some points a gun at me I am going to assume it’s loaded.
Was it really unloaded? The article said it was found without a round in the chamber, which makes me think he probably had a loaded magazine or they would have mentioned that. If he actually had an unloaded gun that would make me think it was more likely he was looking for trouble, since would be useless for self defense and only good for threatening people.
I’m not a gun guy. But I think you are correct. Which I’m guessing meaning he could have quickly done something to pull a round into chamber.
Either isn’t important for the other persons view of risks.
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