site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   28066 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.

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.

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