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 -
Witness to Jordan Neely chokehold death calls Daniel Penny a 'hero'Whoops, wrong link, not sure how that happened. Lets try again.
Witness to Jordan Neely chokehold death calls Daniel Penny a 'hero'
I do wonder if words can do justice with how threatening Neely was being on that train. I'm reminded of the Always Sunny bit about "the implication".
Probably doesn't matter that much for general conversations. I'm sure it'll matter legally, but when we're having the ethical discussion about it, it's going to just keep coming back to some people thinking that you shouldn't ever get violent with a belligerent vagrant that has not yet initiated any physical force and others not caring what happens to belligerent vagrants. This probably isn't a bridgeable divide and most of the nuance is intellectual window-dressing. Yes, it would be best if the person doing the restraining exercise somewhat more caution than choking a guy to death. Yes, it's also true that restraining someone will not be completely safe for the restrainee, particularly when they're likely high as a kite and experiencing excited delirium. Neither of those points really moves the needle from people's gut responses.
It should matter, though. As @Rov_Scam pointed out in a previous thread on this topic, you really do not want to encourage people to be very loose with their standards when it comes to applying violence to another person. It certainly can be difficult to summon lots of sympathy for the average person making a disturbance on the train, but that's missing the point. The kind of person who will aggressively (aggressively as the opposite of "conservatively" here, not in the sense of being the aggressor necessarily) use deadly physical force will likely not limit themselves to people that you personally find distasteful. Offend them on the road by cutting them off? They might take it on themselves to play cop and run you off the road. Take part in a protest they disagree with? Maybe they'll start a fight. Get into an argument at a bar? They might leave to retrieve a weapon, or wait for you outside.
To be clear, I'm not accusing Penny of being this type of person. I have no basis on which to make that particular determination. He might have just made an error in judgement (or he could even have acted in the right--I think this is unlikely, given the witness statements I've read, which don't seem to actually include any actions that Neely took that would constitute a serious threat to human life, but they could be incomplete or wrong). But the use of violence by civilians against other civilians has to be based on high and objective standards, rather than how we feel about the people involved.
I’m totally with you most of the way, but I think you’d want to make sure that the person is legally able to defend themselves while it’s still actually possible to do so successfully. If I have to wait for the burglar in my house to hold a gun to my head before I’m legally allowed to do anything to defend myself, in essence, I don’t have any right to defend myself, because I can only do so once it’s really too late. And I think this would lead to people simply ignoring the laws as they exist. If I’m going to jail unless I let the guy put a gun to my temple, there’s no benefit to restraint. If I shoot him in my driveway or once he comes in or when he starts to threaten me, I still go to jail. So why not go for broke here? Why not waste them in the driveway? With a reasonable self defense law, there’s a reason to not be hasty because while being hasty will probably send you to jail, there’s a point before he pulls the gun where I’m allowed to defend myself without the state’s goons coming after me.
I agree; I linked a video in another comment which goes into detail on the conditions that permit deadly force in self-defense. It includes, among other examples, a description of how drawing a gun, aiming, and firing can take substantially more time than charging at someone with a knife, even from a distance where the casual observer would look and say "that seems safe." My main point is that these standards have to depend on what the person involved actually did and could do in the moment, and that those actions have to reach an objective standard of threat. They cannot be based on someone's personal distaste, or on guesswork, or on the behavior of other people who might be similar, or on an immediate emotional reaction that is not grounded in reality.
The level of threat they have to reach is sometimes called "objective", but it's more of a "common knowledge" thing than an "objective fact" thing. The test is whether a reasonable person in that situation would believe unlawful physical force (or deadly physical force) was being used or was imminently going to be used. This absolutely allows for guesswork, consideration of the behavior for other people who might be similar, and even immediate emotional reactions provided a "reasonable person" would have similar ones.
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