site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   27132 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 6, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

MSNBC reports:

Man dies after hitting head during Israel and Palestinian rallies in California, officials say. Witnesses said Paul Kessler fell and struck his head during a confrontation with protesters Sunday in Ventura County, the sheriff's department said. He died Monday.

Authorities in Ventura County, California, are investigating the death of a Jewish man who was injured during a confrontation at dueling rallies over Israel and Gaza died Monday, the sheriff’s department said. Witnesses said Paul Kessler, 69, "was in a physical altercation with counter-protestor(s)," the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department said in a statement. "During the altercation, Kessler fell backwards and struck his head on the ground,” it said.

What a horrible freak acci-

Paul Kessler, 69, died at a hospital on Monday, a day after he was struck during pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian demonstrations at an intersection in Thousand Oaks, a suburb northwest of Los Angeles, authorities said.

Witnesses said Kessler was involved in a “physical altercation” with one or more counter-protesters, fell backward and struck his head on the ground, according to a statement from the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department. An autopsy Monday said Kessler died from a blunt force head injury and it was homicide, according to the Sheriff’s Department, which said investigators hadn’t ruled out the possibility that the act was a hate crime.

Well, it's unfortunate and tragic to have a real-world example of the eggshell skull rule, but (ed: cw, video of a man dying)-

A witness to the pro-Palestine protest that led to the death of Jewish man Paul Kessler today railed against local police for not arresting the man Kessler argued with - as new video shows the protest continued on even after police arrived at the scene... Witnesses say he and an as-yet unnamed Palestine supporter started arguing, and that it led to the man hitting Kessler in the face with his megaphone.

A police officer is seen on video asking an unidentified man, who is unconfirmed if this is the suspect, 'So you tried to hit his phone?' With law enforcement in the background, protesters are heard chanting, 'You will burn in hell; Israel will burn in hell.'

Another anti-Semitic chant can be heard, 'Hitler didn't want you, Hitler didn't want you, Hitler didn't want you, Hitler should've smashed you.'

Oh.

Nor does the potential for things to get out of hand seem like it was a surprise (ed: cw, video of a man dying):

The man holding the flag in the photo above allegedly lifted up his shirt to show that he had a pistol in his waistband during the October 29 protest at the same corner (Thousand Oaks Boulevard and Westlake Boulevard, just north of the 101 Freeway). Police were called to the scene, but the man left before they arrived.

It's still possible that Kessler's death had some complications, if extraordinarily unlikely. This is Ventura County rather than LA proper, so I think there's at least a chance that genuine prosecution could happen should the death be clear manslaughter or negligent homicide. The suspect has at least been stopped and questioned and is supposedly cooperating, though the amazing lack of any video of the 'confrontation' itself seems to be a complicating factor.

There's no outrage from the conventional sources, or the Biden or White House twitter accounts. There's nothing from the various ACLUs; quite a lot of people who I respected and had strong feelings on political radicalization must not have heard of it. The communities that spent a lot of time hunting down fascists and Nazis to punch and dox don't seem particularly interested by literal invocations of Hitler. And the lack of any arrest despite a clear suspect makes a bit of a mockery of all the people who in the Rittenhouse era proclaimed that any death required a prosecution and a trial. I guess to their credit (if damning with faint praise), the ADL has posted.

I've written at length about the extent and efforts pushing speech and speakers out of the public square have gone, and it's difficult to see this outside of that context. Worse, the lack of backlash seems a justification and legitimization of that behavior.

Which seems noteworthy in a few ways. There's no shortage of right-wing or Red Tribe examples, but Kessler, notably, was not. I'm not a fan of perspectives where only the cleanest hands make acceptable figures to bring forward -- to borrow from Mencken, defending freedom sometimes means defending scoundrels -- but I'll spell out when even that does not seem to be enough. It's not about X as a principle goes to this.

And at a deeper level... @FCfromSSC did a very good tactical analysis of the situation around violence at public protests in the context of the De Oñate Statue shooting. I don't want to extrapolate too hard from this case yet because it could end in a hard conviction next month. But it's looking, if anything, too rosy.

Seems like the 'killer' is a 50yo computer science professor of all things. Link includes a photo of him sitting around with an embarrassed smile on his face while Kessler is splayed out on the pavement waiting for an ambulance.

"Witnesses say the two sides began antagonizing each other and then it turned physical. 'They were both on an even ground, and they were yelling at each other, and then the man brought his megaphone up and hit Paul, and Paul went down,' one unidentified witness told ABC Los Angeles."

There's more conflicting statements, but nothing conclusive.

Edit: As an aside, his 'Rate My Professor' is being brigaded (archive):

"Absolutely slayed his class. Matter of back you could say I straight up murdered it."

Link includes a photo of him sitting around with an embarrassed smile on his face while Kessler is splayed out on the pavement waiting for an ambulance.

An ambulance which, according to the sheriff, he himself called. I don’t know exactly what happened nor what exactly this guy's level of moral culpability is (though he probably is guilty of at least involuntary manslaughter, but if his post-crime conduct is to be used to assess that culpability, then all of conduct should be included, not just some of it)

Yes, I agree. Even if he hadn't called the cops, he hung around to be interviewed at the scene, which is no small thing.

The big questions I would like to see answered is if he deliberately struck the victim in the head (as compared to maybe trying to knock the victim's phone out of his hand as possibly implied per the video of police questioning him in the link) and if he was the first one to strike out, or turn things physical.

I think the article from Forward is pretty good about a facts-only assessment:

[Ventura County Sheriff] said that the nature of the altercation — including “who the aggressor was” — remained unclear because of conflicting statements about what had occurred and a lack of definitive video evidence.

Some of the witnesses were pro-Palestine, while others were pro-Israel,” Fryhoff said. “During the investigation at the scene, deputies determined that Mr. Kessler fell backward and struck his head on the ground. What exactly transpired prior to Mr. Kessler falling backward isn’t crystal clear right now.”

And perhaps his head just did that.

As I said in the post, which describes those details along with videos that the Forward seems to have missed, "still possible that Kessler's death had some complications, if extraordinarily unlikely". My point is a bit broader. I can remember a certain situation that was far more in favor of the homicide suspect and yet resulted in not just the suspect being arrested and jailed but having to post a multi-million-dollar bail.

Why would it be “extraordinarily unlikely” that there are mitigating factors or extenuating circumstances for a claimed manslaughter/homicide during a heated protest? IMO this should be the default opinion unless there’s very persuasive evidence. I’m thinking back to Rittenhouse, some of the Unite the Right charges, the Covington Catholic Kids… protests always get raucous for heated issues.

What we know is that: (1) the police lack evidence to charge him, despite the passioned pleas of local Jewish orgs, plus national spotlight on the police; (2) the altercation took place on the Palestinian side, which greatly increases the odds of the Jewish man having instigated the conflict (what was he doing “encroaching on their land”? There’s clear borders put in place by the authorities, the yellow tape*); (3) the Palestinians say one thing happened and the Jews another, yet the Palestinians were right next to the altercation, and thus their opinion outweighs the Jewish one; (4) the Muslim man said he tried to hit the phone, which tells us less than one might think, because placing a phone right in front of someone’s face aggressively is certainly grounds for swiping it away; (5) the Palestinian man immediately acted like a Good Samaritan and called the hospital plus cooperated with authorities.

edit on second look it’s unclear whether the tape was there before or after

Redefining a public space into "their land" where putting a phone at someone face is unacceptable is a good part of what I'm criticizing.

Your post is very clearly criticizing what you mistakenly believe to be a clear-cut case of a criminal act on the part of the Palestinian man. That’s why you include the testimony of someone from the Israeli side, omit the more authoritative testimony of the police chief which negates the former, and why you sarcastically write “what a freak acci-“ and an emphatic “oh”.

But it’s just not clear cut right now. That’s not my opinion, it’s the words of the Sheriff who possesses maximal information.

No one is “redefining a public space” here, we are using the limited information we have to make preliminary judgments on who is likely the instigator.

No one is “redefining a public space” here, we are using the limited information we have to make preliminary judgments on who is likely the instigator.

...

(2) the altercation took place on the Palestinian side, which greatly increases the odds of the Jewish man having instigated the conflict (what was he doing “encroaching on their land”? There’s clear borders put in place by the authorities, the yellow tape);

While I agree with the Rittenhouse verdict, the comparison doesn't work. Rittenhouse intentionally killed two people; when someone does that in circumstances other than those where self-defense is completely obvious (eg, defense of home), of course he is going to be arrested. In contrast, here there is no evidence that the killing was intentional. Moreover, the police had probable cause at the time to think that the Rittenhouse murders were premeditated.

Moreover, the police had probable cause at the time to think that the Rittenhouse murders were premeditated.

How so?

I think showing up to a protest armed merits some increased suspicion.

When someone is killed, the more effort it took to get into that situation, the less likely it was an accident.

  • -12

On the one hand, your logic is straightforward. On the other hand, you are saying that the lawful exercise of a constitutional right can establish probable cause that a person has broken the law. If I said that the content of a sign a protestor held or a slogan they shouted added up to probable cause, it seems to me that this would also be a straightforward logical argument. I don't expect you or @Gdanning to agree to that standard, though.

Yes, there’s a point at which lawful exercise establishes probable cause.*

What’s important is that the decision is made post facto. Given that two men died, Rittenhouse’s presence and equipment merited suspicion. In @Gdanning’s example, the Nazi larper is allowed to bear arms by a synagogue—but once police hear that there’s been a murder in the area, they have an obvious suspect.

This means yes, there is some protected speech which should constitute probable cause for arresting protestors once a crime has been committed. Or even before, judging by the “imminent lawless action” standard. If Mr. Alnaji had a “gas the Jews” sign, or was even reported joining some of the chants, I’d expect him to be taken in.

* If this is the wrong term, legally speaking, my apologies!

@netstack did not say that exercise of a constitutional right establishes probable cause. They said it increases suspicion. That is obviously true. I have the right to wear a Nazi outfit, and a right to bear arms, and a right to walk around near a synagogue. But that doesn't mean police have to ignore those things. Most facts which help establish probable cause are themselves perfectly legal.

Can you name a blue-coded constitutionally-protected activity that clearly "increases suspicion" in a way that predictably results in significantly worse outcomes in the justice system? You've cited a Nazi uniform; what's the blue-tribe equivalent that observably results in harsher charges and higher bails, which you accept as just?

...This, of course, ignores the numerous cases where the arms leftists carried did not "increase suspicion" in an equivalent way, even when they were shooting at or killing people.

More comments

Because he came across state lines with a gun, and ended up shooting his political opponents. Again, based on facts that emerged, I do not think that he premeditated; in fact, I am sure that he did not, and I am sure that his acquittal was correct. But probable cause is quite a low bar, and of course is based on evidence known at the time of the arrest.

  • -10

Because he came across state lines with a gun

He didn't, the gun literally never left Wisconsin. Why do people keep repeating this one? And ehy do they keep making a big deal over him "crossing state lines" when his job was in Kenosha and it was 30 minutes away from his home. It's like if someone from NYC shot someone in Jersey City, no one would make a big deal out of it. He actually lived closer to Kenosha than the 3 people he shot.

I already talked about that; I meant what the police believed at the time, because that is all that is relevant to the issue of the arrest.

  • -10

You've given zero evidence for that though.

Hm.

I don't think 'he opposed their political position' is very strong evidence of murder, but maybe that's just me. He said he didn't mean to, and what the suspect claims is what really matters.

What element of murder is it that you think is satisfied by that video?

I don't. But I'm not the person who just said "ended up shooting his political opponents" was evidence of not just murder but premeditated murder!

More comments

Because he came across state lines with a gun

Please, why are you still repeating this in the year of Our Lord 2023?

Again, the point is what the police believed at the time.

Have they? Or was that something thoughtlessly repeated by the media (or even just Twitter)? He turned himself in, you think they didn't ask him where he got the gun from? You think they didn't believe him?

More comments

Good thing I linked to a New York Times article that made the self-defense arguments completely obvious!

Again, I believe that his acquittal was correct, but his guilt or innocence depends on a lot more than on just who fired first. Self-defense has quite a few complexities. For example, the guy in the car here was convicted of murder despite not firing first. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1655732/Video-Surveillance-footage-shows-shootout-killed-3-year-old-boy.html

And the New York Times article I've linked did not rest solely on who fired first.

Nevertheless, the idea that his self-defense claim was obviously correct is belied by the fact that the jury deliberated for several days.

Would you like to try again with a more serious argument about the facts of the case as available to the police at the time of Rittenhouse's arrest, or do you want me to rip through the various procedural problems and literal threats (and one high-profile attempt to identify the jurors by newscasters) aimed at that?

Rittenhouse intentionally killed two people; when someone does that in circumstances other than those where self-defense is completely obvious (eg, defense of home), of course he is going to be arrested.

Except the prosecutor in his case literally said he would not have prosecuted the protesters if they were the ones that killed Rittenhouse instead.

Assuming that is true, we are talking about the arrest stage, not the prosecution stage. Police make arrests, not prosecutors.

Assuming that is true

I wish @ArjinFerman had provided a reference, but I have the itch to look up ridiculous claims ... and what the hell, that was another thing that actually happened. The interview is here, with the money quote at 37:50:

"In my mind, if someone in that crowd had a gun and had shot and killed Kyle Rittenhouse, our office would not have prosecuted; our office would not have found that person criminally liable."

He provides some context, but it's not "self-defense is completely obvious" context, it's "remember when a gun owner stopped a mass shooting and then the cops blundered in and killed the hero" context, and that was supposed to be in support of his thesis. He claims Rittenhouse running away with his gun after killing Rosenbaum is sufficient reason to kill him ... but what else was Rittenhouse supposed to do? Drop his weapon for the angry mob to pick up? Not retreat? The idea that you can identify and kill an active shooter because you see them running past a ton of people without shooting any of them is such obvious nonsense; you'd hope he would stop and rethink his life after that came out of his mouth.

I can't believe this interview didn't get more play! The only relevant Google hits for 'binger rittenhouse "would not have prosecuted"' right now are the author's blog I linked, a single episode of a video podcast with 50k subscribers, a meme, and a tweet from this April.

I think you have excluded some of the context. What he says is, "From the crowd's perspective, that's how they viewed him [ie as an active shooter]. And that was a reasonable assumption on their part at that particular moment. ... After learning that he just shot someone, seeing him running through a crowded area with a gun that it would have been reasonable for ... the crowd to view him as an active shooter."

He claims Rittenhouse running away with his gun after killing Rosenbaum is sufficient reason to kill him ... but what else was Rittenhouse supposed to do

No, that is not what he says. He says it would have been reasonable for someone to believe that he could shoot him in self-defense or defense of others. It is important to bear in mind 1) if I reasonably believe someone is a threat, I can kill him in self-defense, even if I am mistaken;* and 2) it is perfectly possible for both parties to be acting in self-defense defense.

*"If the defendant kills an innocent person, but circumstances made it reasonably appear that the killing was necessary in self-defense, that is tragedy, not murder." People v. Minifie, 13 Cal. 4th 1055 (Cal: Supreme Court 1996).

it is perfectly possible for both parties to be acting in self-defense defense.

I might need to listen to the whole thing again, but from what I remember, he actually explicitly denies that, and argues one party must have a greater claim to self-defense, and that party was not Rittenhouse.

Anyway, none of this is relevant, the important claim is that he said his office would not prosecute if the mob ended up shooting him, rather than the other way around. If both parties have a claim to self-defense, than both parties should be prosecuted, or neither.

More comments

I wish @ArjinFerman had provided a reference, but I have the itch to look up ridiculous claims ... and what the hell, that was another thing that actually happened.

Sorry for wasting your time, usually when I make ridiculous claims, I have the source ready at my fingertips, so next time feel free to PM me.

I find it necessary, because if you provide sources from the start, people tend to build cases that the claim is, in fact, not ridiculous, and our glorious system is working as intended to provide justice for all. So I like to get people to contradict me first.

I can't believe this interview didn't get more play!

There's also a bunch of youtube lawyers that covered it. The funny thing is that I'm not sure if this is the worst thing he said there, the whole interview is insane.

we are talking about the arrest stage

This is false. We are also talking about the jailing and setting the bail stage.

Jailing is also done by the police, not the prosecutor. And we don't know what bail is going to be set for this new guy, so bail is irrelevant.

Sure it's relevant. Is it common for someone to be held in jail for longer than 48 hours when the prosecutors say there's no case? How many people who have their bail set to a million dollars or above end up being simply not prosecuted?

More comments

A political rally at which anti-semitic chants are heard and at which a counter-protestor is killed, could also describe Unite the Right gathering. Which reminds me, the latters famous chant ("Jews will not replace us.") could be repurposed by the pro-Palestian protestors by changing "Jews" to "Zionists". Then pro-Palestians could say it refers to Isreali settlers in West Bank, IDF in Gaza, or just any Jew in territories between River and the Sea, depending on radical they are.

The guy who hit him should get 2 years. It was improbable his actions would lead to death but he did commit assault and it resulted in death.

Looks like a simple case here.

It does in many ways remind me of Floyd who at most Chauvin should have gotten 2 years for doing his legally authorized job with bad technique resulting in a death.

Nonsense. Punching somebody in the head is attempted murder. Them actually dying makes it 2nd degree murder, minimum.

Truish. But I’ve seen many fist fights. Not every day do people die. I would still call it a low probability.

I think people should be punished on what they do and not what occurs. Firing a bullet into someone has a much higher chance of death like 30% plus. Punching a guy probably sub 1%.

Attempted murder in CA requires the intent to kill. The vast majority of people who punch others in the face do not intend to kill.

Murder does not require the intent to kill, but even someone who forms the intent to kill during an altercation is often guilty only of voluntary manslaughter.

But most accidental deaths resulting from a simple assault are involuntary manslaughter.

The guy who hit him should get 2 years.

Why 2 years and not 3 to 11? Seems to me that even if we extend maximal charity to the guy with the bull horn, this is about as textbook a case of "Voluntary Manslaughter" as one could ask for.

In the context of an altercation, voluntary manslaughter in CA requires that the defendant have the mental state required for murder.

Maximal charity to the guy results in involuntary manslaughter, rather than voluntary manslaughter.

In the context of an altercation, voluntary manslaughter in CA requires that the defendant have the mental state required for murder.

INAL but no I'm pretty sure it isn't. Homicide is covered under section 500 of the California Criminal Code with sections 570 - 572 covering Voluntary Manslaughter. "The mental state required for murder" is not required. It is instead cited as the qualifying distinction between manslaughter and murder. Per Official CA Jury Guidelines the key components of Voluntary Manslaughter are that "The defendant committed an act that caused the death of another person." and that "(He/She) deliberately acted with conscious disregard for human life".

Accidentally killing someone in a fight is quite literally a textbook example of voluntary manslaughter.

Homicide is covered under section 500 of the California Criminal Code

FYI, that link is to the CA Criminal Jury Instructions; the relevant CA Penal Codes sections are here

"The mental state required for murder" is not required

The reason I say that is the mental state required for murder is indeed required is that the jury instruction for involuntary manslaughter based on heat of passion/ sudden quarrel where murder is also charged says: "A killing that would otherwise be murder is reduced to voluntary manslaughter if the defendant killed someone because of a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion." Moreover, your reference to the components of voluntary manslaughter are incomplete; where murder is not charged, the jury is instructed:

To prove that the defendant is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, the People must prove that:

  1. The defendant committed an act that caused the death of another person;[AND]
  2. When the defendant acted, (he/she) unlawfully intended to kill someone(;/.) <Give element 3 when instructing on self-defense or defense of another. [AND3. (He/She) killed without lawful excuse or justification.]

Or the People must prove that:

  1. The defendant intentionally committed an act that caused the death of another person;
  2. The natural consequences of the act were dangerous to human life;
  3. At the time (he/she) acted, (he/she) knew the act was dangerous tohuman life; [AND]
  4. (He/She) deliberately acted with conscious disregard for humanlife (;/.)<Give element 5 when instructing on self-defense or defense of another.> [AND5. (He/She) killed without lawful excuse or justification.]

Those elements re mental state are identical to the mental state required for murder, i.e., malice aforethought:

There are two kinds of malice aforethought, express malice and implied malice. Proof of either is sufficient to establish the state of mind required for murder.

The defendant had express malice if (he/she) unlawfully intended to kill.

The defendant had implied malice if:

  1. (He/She) intentionally (committed the act/[or] failed to act);
  2. The natural and probable consequences of the (act/[or] failure toact) were dangerous to human life;
  3. At the time (he/she) (acted/[or] failed to act), (he/she) knew (his/her) (act/[or] failure to act) was dangerous to human life;AND
  4. (He/She) deliberately (acted/[or] failed to act) with conscious disregard for (human/ [or] fetal) life.

So, when you correctly note that one who kills during a fight and "(He/She) deliberately acted with conscious disregard for human life" is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, you are noting that the mental state is the same as for murder.

A defendant who kills accidentally in a fight, but does not act with intent to kill or reckless disregard for human life is guilty of involuntary manslaughter:

When a person commits an unlawful killing but does not intend to kill and does not act with conscious disregard for human life, then the crime is involuntary manslaughter.

The difference between other homicide offenses and involuntary manslaughter depends on whether the person was aware of the risk to life that his or her actions created and consciously disregarded that risk. An unlawful killing caused by a willful act done with full knowledge and awareness that the person is endangering the life of another, and done in conscious disregard of that risk, is voluntary manslaughter or murder. An unlawful killing resulting from a willful act committed without intent to kill and without conscious disregard of the risk to human life is involuntary manslaughter.

Edit: To clarify, if you and I are fighting and I get so pissed that I try to kill you (and do). or do something so dangerous that I have acted in disregard for human life, that is voluntary manslaughter. But if I merely hit you in a normal fashion without intent to kill nor in a way that indicates disregard for human life and you fall and die, that is involuntary manslaughter.

Was not doing lawyerly stuff and looking up sentencing guidelines.

I’ve seen things way worse get far less like DUI deaths getting out in a year.

Throwing one punch just doesn’t seem as complicit in someone’s death than driving drunk which is an event that should have been anticipated as a reasonable probability of death.

Henry Ruggs got 3-10 years which I would use as a behavior highly likely to result in death of someone. Driving 140 shitfaced.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/38162272/ex-raiders-wr-henry-ruggs-iii-sentenced-3-10-years-fatal-dui

Also when I said 2 years I meant 2 years time served which would be inline with a 3 year sentence. If you think a little higher I got no big beef but 2 felt ballpark right to me (for actual days served).

Yes, it's reasonably possible for a punch to kill someone if it caused them to fall and hit their head.

Chauvin should get less time. Technique was current per MPD manual, also Floyd was resisting, at the beginning if not the end.

That’s how I would have voted on a jury but I think a reasonable argument can be made he was negligent and should have done better perhaps at a criminal level.

That seems to be the argument that carried the day, if you believe the verdict was based in reason.

I don't find the argument reasonable.

The argument that carried the day was a full lynch mob he’s a racists cracker who deserves life.

Not a reasonable argument.

Being negligent at work would have been 2 years. He got a lot more and I believe there were racial civil rights or hate crime add-ons.

The communities that spent a lot of time hunting down fascists and Nazis to punch and dox don't seem particularly interested by literal invocations of Hitler.

Well duh, their job is to push a narrative, because that’s what advocacy groups do. And that narrative is ‘republicans/white Christian’s/red tribers are mostly Nazis, like actual literal ones who will Carry out atrocities, so take our fringes seriously when they cry about being in the opening phases of a genocide’. Obviously they’re not interested in calling attention to actual literal invocations of Hitler, because those are mostly done by people who are none of those things- they’re criminals or brown Muslims or Ukrainian soldiers.

I'm hoping this is insufficiently charitable -- I'm not just talking dyed-in-the-wool groups like Unicorn Riot, Distributed Denial of Secrets, or the SLPC, but a lot broader a group of communities including some pretty close to the ratsphere -- but worse I think it's insufficiently cynical.

Even if all these groups are organizationally scheming political operations, what's really fascinating is that they normally don't manage to retain very strong message discipline outside of their core focuses, and sometimes not even there. It's actively difficult to not pick up a true believer or two eventually, if only by mistake. So is this the area where they're focusing message discipline, or are these the true believers?

As a guy with most of a medical degree: falling and hitting your head on concrete can be a motherfucker. Results are a crapshoot and can be anything from a mild concussion to death. I saw a young, fit teenager that very nearly died and will be crippled for life with brain injury...because he fainted and fell off a step that was a foot and a half high. Plenty of manslaughter cases come from fistfights that take place in parking lots; one man knocks the other out and the loser falls, hits his head on the pavement, and dies. I think that this guy was KO'd by the thrown megaphone, hit his head on the concrete, and was mortally injured.

Wait, you're studying to be a doctor, and you still can't get laid? wth?

It's not terribly uncommon here in America; I know...let's see, three medical students or residents that have lots of trouble getting dates or have never had girlfriends. At my (decent, US) medical school, it's very interesting indeed how the short guys in my class and the short interns are focused on their careers while the average and tall ones have girlfriends.

Now, I don't think there is anything all that bad about this state of affairs. It may be that society needs a niche of celibate dudes for life paths that don't mesh well with marriage and children, and 'choose said guys by lot based on height' doesn't seem that bad. Consider things like the draft lottery. Also, the short guys that do get married or get into relationships with women that aren't morbidly obese or literally batshit crazy are a testament to the strength of the human spirit, etc...I've seen it done. Once. The man in question is going to be a literal brain surgeon and is the most charismatic person in our class; we think he could have a good career in politics. Your 5'4" family medicine resident or even a pint-size Navy SEAL ain't up to snuff. Such is life - there is nothing terribly wrong with the fact that short men must be remarkable, accept lifelong celibacy, or decide where they want the ambulances.

Uh, if becoming a doctor will attract women(and I have no doubt that this is true; I’d be more surprised if it wasn’t) then why are you bothering with ‘the hock’ to try to get a date instead of just waiting however many years?

Because he's crazy. Not in a neat DSM-5 way with a legible diagnosis, just a surfeit of common sense and an excess of self-loathing. There's no pill for that I'm aware of.

Because I'd basically be a mark for a gold digger at that point; I don't necessarily know if I can improve on that by going on the Hock, but 'survived being chucked into the Alaskan wilderness in winter' definitely seems to on the surface fulfill the 'become remarkable' criterion. I'd like to make it very clear that this does not guarantee success any more than lining up at the starting line of a local 5K means you're going to win. It's a generally necessary but by no means sufficient condition.

So too, there would still be the 'hypocrisy' element; I believe that my subpar physical appearance and autism make me more or less disgusting for potential partners and I'd still be autistic and bald as a doctor. So I'd be asking my partner to do something I wasn't willing or able to do myself: endure pointless suffering. Making some autistic ugly-ish doctor happy through enduring pointless suffering day after day (from being with someone you consider gross) isn't a sacrifice that I'm currently worthy of. "Having a shit ton of determination and being willing to endure Hell on Earth for no goddamn reason" seems to be a building block of being worthy of that kind of sacrifice, if anyone truly is.

I know one bald, short and autistic doctor personally, and the only reason he's not dateable is because he's physically deformed and also schizophrenic (yet another case I personally diagnosed as a med student and had ratified later, you'd think someone would notice since both of them had doctor parents).

You're salvageable. There are almost certainly anatomically and mentally normal women who would happily date you if you keep working out and dress decently, especially since you'll be a doctor unless the Hock kills you.

There are almost certainly anatomically and mentally normal women who would happily date you if you keep working out and dress decently, especially since you'll be a doctor unless the Hock kills you.

Yes, I am well aware that there are desperately poor women in Cambodia or Thailand or hell, rural India who would date a man they are deeply and viscerally disgusted by in order to pull themselves and their families out of crushing Third World poverty. This is one hell of a sacrifice, I admire the hell out of that kind of resolve, and I don't think I'm worthy of it. I've met maybe a handful of people that are...maybe one percent of the population? Two? I'd sure as hell say that most of the people reading this ain't worthy of that, even though I think most people here are fine people and decent human beings.

What’s so bad about a gold digger? You want female companionship, she wants a nice life, pick someone smart enough to have reasonable desires and know that divorce isn’t a massive payday(it rarely is and you’re not exactly a billionaire where even a chump change settlement is life changing money, I’d assume), you’ll both bond and make the most of the situation. As I understand it the median woman considers a husband who puts effort in and values her much more of a catch than one who is conventionally attractive and funny; it seems like that’s well within your power.

The issue with gold-diggers is the fact that they're likely to leave you when you're no longer gold. You might fall sick, or lose your job, and then she's off to the next one.

It's hardly a binary notion, women are in general attracted to wealth and status after all, which I don't find reprehensible in the least, but in my eyes, a wife should be willing to stick with you through thick and thin.

This isn't to say a woman who's with you for the money is a bad alternative to being single, but not only is Skook OD-ing on blackpills, I sincerely doubt he's so far gone that he can't land a woman we wouldn't call a gold digger.

While he might be short and (terminally) autistic, I think once he's a practising doctor he'll have plenty of above average looking nurses drawn to him, and while they might like the money or status, that doesn't necessarily mean them hoes ain't loyal. Besides, he says he works out, so it has to count for something doesn't it?

Worst case is a mail order bride, plus a solid pre-nup, though he should get one anyway.

Now, to put a mild spanner in the works, I wouldn't bet on him finishing his residency and them becoming a casual millionaire in less than a decade that is the norm for an American doctor, for the same reason I'm unlikely to be a consultant psychiatrist, AI is going to make us effectively obsolete in like 5 years max, maybe a few more years accounting for regulatory inertia.

But she won't know that! And by the time it's obvious, everyone else is fucked too ❤️

but not only is Skook OD-ing on blackpills

That is precisely what I’m trying to talk him out of before he gets himself killed wandering around in rural northern Alaska.

The plot just keeps thickening on The Motte, from all quarters it seems.

This has been Motte Lore for a while. For what it’s worth, I agree with Mr Hock, I wouldn’t necessarily want to be the guy for whom an MD was the primary differentiator between whether a woman would date me or not. Not that I think Skookum’s celibacy is necessarily involuntary, I just don’t think his argument is complete bullshit. I’m curious to see what he considers his female equivalent, and if he’d date her.

Only recently have I begun to pay attention to what username goes with whom. I knew a few back on the Reddit days but I don't feel like I see many of them here. Or maybe I forgot or wasn't as attentive as I should've been. It's easy to forget Mottizens aren't just idiosyncratic chatbots but real people--but where, of what age, and sometimes even male or female I often have no idea.

Re: Skookum I am not always clear on what his argument is, other than he has a rather burning self-hatred, finds himself physically repulsive, and projects that self-image in such a way that he assumes women feel the exact same about him (visceral loathing). Also apparently he has seen, heard about in his own social circle, or somehow internalized the idea that women are homicidal and one of them might kill him at some point for something he inadvertently does. Or that he will be somehow attacked for showing interest in a woman. Or whatever. And finally, that an act of MegaChad adventure bravery (The Hock) will be the redemptive quest that will make him into...something better than what he feels that he currently is. (Instead of the suicidal misadventure of a man with an all-but-clearly stated deathwish, which is how I see it.) (Please correct any of this if you like, @SkookumTree, I don't want to misrepresent you.)

As far as whether or not having a med degree is social pheromone, I wouldn't doubt it. I guess there are physicians who agonize over whether women are into them "just for their MD" but I don't think I'd care so much--there's always something that flips a woman's switch (or nothing that does), and while sometimes it makes sense (tall, wealthy, deep blue eyes, muscular, clean fingernails, whatever), sometimes I think it's more random. I found this post recently by @raggedy_anthem insightful, even if it doesn't really provide any clear path for those seeking one.

I have just discovered "SkookumTree" apparently means "brave tree" in Chinook jargon, which was interesting--I'd thought it was just a weird-sounding word.

I am not always clear on what his argument is, other than he has a rather burning self-hatred, finds himself physically repulsive, and projects that self-image in such a way that he assumes women feel the exact same about him (visceral loathing).

Most of the repulsion's not physical, although my decidedly below average physical appearance doesn't do me any favors. I'm no Quasimodo, which I'll admit to here.

Also apparently he has seen, heard about in his own social circle, or somehow internalized the idea that women are homicidal and one of them might kill him at some point for something he inadvertently does. Or that he will be somehow attacked for showing interest in a woman. Or whatever. And finally, that an act of MegaChad adventure bravery (The Hock) will be the redemptive quest that will make him into...something better than what he feels that he currently is. (Instead of the suicidal misadventure of a man with an all-but-clearly stated deathwish, which is how I see it.

This guy put it better than I could have done myself.

More comments

This has been Motte Lore for a while.

I get the appeal of old forum culture now, even if by the time I had reliable internet access Reddit was already slaughtering them. There's a charm in having familiar faces and in-jokes within a community that isn't so large everyone becomes interchangeable and anonymous, even it they're using pseudonyms.

I've seen several accounts of men in this position who didn't receive any interest until they got their MD at which point it was fish in a barrel.

That aligns with my personal experience in India, to an extent after adjusting for the nebbishness of the guys and the lower levels of sexual activity in general.

The majority of my male classmates made it through the course without touching poon outside a cadaver or a female volunteer in the ward, while I think at least half of them still haven't gotten laid, at the very least they know they're not going to remain unmarried if they want.

Goes to show most people can't think ahead, an American med student is the perfect blend of high potential value that's grossly underrated, once they're done with their residency they'll be millionaires in a few years. Catch them before the competition heats up and they know their worth I say.

@SkookumTree hey wanna marry me? I could use the naturalization, and if you're that terminally horny and alone, any hole's a goal right? At the very least I'll give you 1:1 rizz classes 🙏

For my MD-holding short friends that are still residents and not attending physicians: sure. Fish in a barrel...a very large barrel the size of an Olympic swimming pool, with a BB gun to shoot at them with. Water's murky, too.

How short are you

5'6"

I think he's said he's 5'5 or 5'6, which while in extremely inconvenient territory, still isn't outright dwarfism.

At the very least there are plenty of tiny Asian women who wouldn't consider that a deal breaker when all the other practical considerations exist.

Some states in Australia brought in 'One Punch Laws' to specifically address the grey area between common assault, manslaughter and murder to better align with the communities' sense of justice.

It was motivated by alcohol fueled violence in nightlife areas, but would be equally applicable here. A lot of effort went into educating the community that throwing a punch could lead to a homicide.

I think a one punch law in the US would not align with a lot of communities' senses of justice. Two guys get into a fight, there's a bunch of shoving, then one of them socks the other in the nose and they fall and hit their head and die... and the survivor gets the max penalty for any crime in Australia, life in prison?

There are differing versions of the law in different states. There seems to be certain requirements for the 'unlawful striking leading to death' laws to activate. In some cases it needs to be a single punch thrown under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. In other cases harsher sentencing is reserved for 'coward punch' strikes where the victim is unaware that the strike is taking place (punch from behind for instance, or attacking a random passerby).

Some example punishments:

10 years for a single punch thrown outside a birthday party leading to death while the assaulter was drunk

10 years after a thug punched a surgeon trying to enforce a no smoking sign out the front of a hospital leading to death

10 years for punching someone unprovoked from behind at the casino food court while drunk leading to death

8 years for punching someone after the victim supposedly stole the killer's food from a takeaway 'hole in the wall' after a night out leading to death

Minimum sentencing seems to be around 8-10 years and that seems to be the standard punishment given for these sorts of offenses after 10 minutes of googling. Some offenders are eligible for parole after serving half their sentence. Seems fairly reasonable to me, particularly with the ability to allow parole.

Maximum sentence of life imprisonment doesn't seem to have been given out yet and would presumably require aggravating factors.

All this being said, these laws seem to be for a 'one guy throws a single punch (starting the fight) and retreats' situation rather than 'two guys willingly start shoving each other, participating in escalation to a brawl' scenario. Details on the OP seem to be murky at the moment.

Yeah. You do have things more akin to a consensual fistfight duel than one asshole attacking another guy who might just have been a bit less of an asshole that day. In that case I think a much more minor sentence is appropriate...two guys deciding to take it outside and one of them dying from what's basically a shitty bare knuckle boxing match might mean a year or two in prison basically as punishment for fucking up a duel that wasn't supposed to kill anyone.

Life imprisonment is a bit excessive here, and 8 to 10 years sounds like what you'd expect for manslaughter.

Everything I've heard from medical professionals and people with combat in their professional life tells me the same thing, to the extent that I sometimes find it baffling that enough of us survive to adulthood to keep the population going. Our skulls are fragile, and the Earth can be very hard and sharp. I also had a friend whose then-young-and-healthy coworker died 2 days after hitting her head on the ice. She seemed fine the next day and even came to work, but she was dead the day after. These have certainly shaped the way I treat potential head injuries and also how I consider altercations; I think anyone attacking anyone else while in any environment with hard surfaces gives the defender the justification to use lethal force in self defense, including firearms, because I don't consider firearms an escalation compared to hitting someone when there's concrete or even asphalt nearby. Either way, you're establishing that you consider the other person's life to be expendable, and the other person has a right to defend against that, even if that requires killing you.

I don't know. I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint, and from what I've heard of redneck territory, starting a fistfight if you aren't on reasonably friendly terms with the rest of the room gets you shot. I don't entirely agree with you: "getting punched in a parking lot brawl" is a hell of a lot less likely to kill or maim you than "getting shot by a guy". The results of the former are a crapshoot; most fistfights end without anyone being killed or maimed.

I remember this case from the Floyd protests. Though I had forgotten that Gugino didn't die, it still seems that the effects were quite serious.

As a guy with most of a medical degree

As one with one and change, I certainly agree. Humans are both surprisingly resilient and also extremely squishy, and you don't fuck with blunt-force trauma to the cranium if you can help it.

I count myself lucky that I'm a peaceful person who hasn't thrown a punch in anger since middle-school, if I'm risking my noggin it better be for more than a drunken brawl.

I train in martial arts for self defense, specifically Muay Thai, and while I focus on all good fundamentals as you should, I add a lot of additional focus on shots to the body for more or less this reason.

While it goes without saying that you shouldn’t fight unless absolutely necessary and you are unable to successfully run away, I’m trying to stop the fight as fast as possible and also not catch a case.

So I’m talking shin kicks to the liver or floating ribs, knees to the solar plexus, punches to the liver, downward elbows to the collarbone, leg kicks, and stuff like that.

Most of these blows are extremely painful to the point of being debilitating if landed with power and expertise, will sap someone’s will & ability to fight, and with enough practice you can bruise or crack ribs, fold peoples legs, rupture livers, knock the wind out of someone in an instant. Since most street altercations are initiated by drunk and/or high morons with no training and little to no defense, a fight can be ended pretty quickly by working the body or cracking their legs with your shin.

And most importantly; compared to blows to the head you’re much less likely to kill or cripple someone, break your hand or foot against someone’s skull or jaw, and/or catch a murder or manslaughter rap.

Put another one down for my claim that "most political violence is right-wing" is a lie generated by people that just elect to not classify violence as political when it's bad for that narrative.

I think- double check the numbers if you want to rely on believing this argument- that this is a lie generated by categorizing violence by white supremacist prison gangs as right wing political violence as opposed to ODC’s in an environment where gangs are separated by race.

That's a big part of how the ADL does it at least. Of course others might use other methods to get the results they want. Here's a Reddit comment I wrote some years ago about the ADL's report "Murder and Extremism in the United States in 2018". This methodology is then used to justify splashy graphics about how "Almost all of the 2018 extremist-related murders were committed by right-wing extremists." (page 13), a claim echoed in many headlines citing the report.

Check out the actual list of murders on page 23. No actual ideological or racist motive is required and it seems any murder by someone involved with a white prison gang is counted, but murders by people involved with black or latino prison gangs are not. I started listing ones that seemed obviously dishonest to include but ended up with the majority of the list:

Robstown, Texas, July 27, 2018. Richard Starry shot and killed four relatives at a local nursing center and at his home in an apparent act of domestic violence before killing himself. According to local media, Starry had been a member of a white supremacist group while in prison.

Sumter, South Carolina, August 11, 2018. Demetrius Alexander Brown, a self-proclaimed Moorish sovereign citizen, was arrested for the fatal shooting of Sharmine Pack following a dispute about a vehicle sale at an auto repair shop.

Camden, Michigan, June 30, 2018. Anti-government extremist Joshua Daniel Miller was arrested for the shooting death of Eddie Coleman Heathcoe. Miller allegedly got into an argument with his ex-wife at the home she shared with Heathcoe. Miller was involved with militia and Three Percenter groups.

Dothan, Alabama, June 4, 2018. James Mathis, a member of the Georgia-based white supremacist prison gang Ghostface Gangsters, and his wife, Amanda Oakes, allegedly killed their six-month-old son and put his body in a freezer in a hotel room. The couple fled to Florida where they were arrested following a carjacking attempt.

Renton, Washington, September 19, 2018. White supremacist Jeremy Shaw, who owned a small roofing business called Aryan Enterprises, was arrested along with his wife, Lorena, in connection with an alleged plot to murder Steven Morphis and steal his property through an adverse possession scheme. Morphis was beaten with a blunt instrument and his throat was slashed. Detectives who searched Jeremey Shaw’s home found a number of Nazi- and white supremacist-themed items. He was charged with homicide, burglary and arson; Lorena was charged with burglary, arson and rendering criminal assistance.

Athens, Georgia, May 11, 2018. Following a family argument, Malachi Qaadir Dorns, 19, stabbed his mother and older brother multiple times, wounding his mother and killing his brother. In an earlier arrest, Dornss told police that he was a sovereign citizen.

Abingdon, Virginia, May 4, 2018. Roger Melvin Tackett was charged with first degree murder and other crimes after fatally shooting an acquaintance following a dispute. According to police, Tackett has multiple white supremacist tattoos.

Nashville, Tennessee, April 22, 2018. Travis Reinking opened fire inside a Waffle House, killing four people and wounding or injuring four more. Reports from co-workers and police officers who had previously known or encountered Reinking stated that he was a sovereign citizen. However, Reinking also has a serious history of mental illness and the shooting appears to have been non-ideological in nature; he has been ruled incompetent to stand trial.

Parkland, Florida, February 14, 2018. Nikolas Cruz launched a deadly shooting spree at his former high school, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, killing 17 people and wounding 17 more. According to CNN, Cruz, 19, belonged to a racist Instagram group and hated blacks and Jews, even claiming Jews wanted to destroy the world. Cruz also allegedly referred to women who engaged in interracial relationships as “traitors.” A South Florida Sun-Sentinel article reported that Cruz had racist and Nazi symbols on his backpack and that he had etched swastikas onto ammunition magazines left behind at the school after the shooting. However, little evidence has so far emerged to suggest that the MSDHS shooting spree itself was conducted as a white supremacist attack

I remember that last case, keep in mind Cruz also had Soviet and satanic symbols on his stuff and told authorities he was ordered to commit the shooting by demons, his interest was more towards anything edgy than towards any particular ideology. In any case, the list of cases seems drastically different from what most people would expect after seeing the graph or hearing the supposed percentages.

What shameless book-cooking.

I'm skeptical about this. I did some brief searching and most research seems to have pretty clear definitions for what constitutes political violence.

What he's talking about is how the ADL does it at least, see my comment above.

What does ODC stand for?

Ordinary decent criminal.

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