site banner

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
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.

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.

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.