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 -
A division between Stand Your Ground and Duty to Retreat philosophies exists, but in addition to the lines being a lot blurrier than this summary (eg, even a lot of SYG advocates promote deescalation and avoidance, most famously Masaad Ayoob), I think you're badly strawmanning SYG perspectives as RealManTM.
The problem with DTG isn't that retreat is Unmanly, or the various pragmatic problems where a jury second-guesses split-second decisions about ease of retreat. It's that it demands a surrender of the public sphere:
(Or cfe here)
Even in a perfect world, where police hammer every criminal action, a ton of 'fight' happens well below the level of criminality or what should be seen as criminality. Whoever is willing to defect can commandeer large portions of the public sphere, readily. And we do not, bluntly, live in that perfect world: no small portion of coastal cities have transparently given permission for extralegal actors to crush political positions they don't like, while ignoring (sometimes 'mandatory!') restrictions on bad actors they do like.
IMO neither "Stand Your Ground" nor "Duty to Retreat" neatly solve all cases. I don't think there's a general solution to what I'd call the Thunderdome Problem ("two men enter, one man leaves") regarding how the justice system should, absent other evidence, a dead body and the survivor's claim of having been attacked. I, at least, don't think the criminal justice system either categorically believing, or disbelieving the survivor's claim counts is sufficiently fair.
It may be the case that Thunderdome cases are sufficiently infrequent to not matter generally, but some of our more scissor-y examples of claimed self-defense violence (Zimmerman, perhaps most notably) do seem to fit with that pattern. It seems plausible to me that people are applying their personal biases toward the general case to sufficiently fuzzy specific cases.
It is almost true that SYG has nothing to do with the Zimmerman case, and I find the thin bit of exception annoying, because it doesn't engage the philosophical point at all.
In Zimmerman's case, his actions were fully covered by either a generic SYG regime or a DTR regime. The philosophical difference does not apply to that case in the slightest--when he shot Martin, he had no ability to retreat, and it was Martin that forced the encounter, not Zimmerman. All of that is very clear-cut in the evidence presented at trial; if Florida had been a full-bore generic DTR state, Zimmerman would have been equally justified under the facts of the case.
The problem is that the word "generic" in the last paragraph is doing a bit of lifting. Florida's specific SYG law did apply to the case, but on a completely secondary point--the text of the law prohibited the arrest of someone claiming self-defense unless the officers had probable cause to believe that the self-defense argument was a lie. Zimmerman's arrest violated the SYG law because the police never had probable cause to believe he was lying; the evidence collected immediately at the scene and the following day (with Zimmerman's active cooperation) uniformly supported his description of events, as did every bit of subsequently developed direct or eye/earwitness testimony.
"Categorically believing, or disbelieving" is a false choice that does not describe the law accurately--the law set up a presumption in favor of the self-defense claimant in protecting him from arrest, but that presumption could be defeated by sufficient evidence to establish probable cause.
My understanding of the Zimmerman/Martin case is that there are no witnesses to how the altercation started between Martin and Zimmerman that ended up with Zimmerman on his back and forced to shoot Martin, but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that it was a "fighting" situation. Clearly if you start the tape with Zimmerman on the ground then it looks like Zimmerman defending himself against a criminal attack by Martin, but there is no reason to think that Martin (who was going about his lawful business peacefully at the time, regardless of his rapsheet) would respond to Zimmerman following him in a car by hiding in the bushes on the offchance that Zimmerman came back to confront him on foot allowing Martin to jump him.
The most likely scenario and, roughly, the prosecution theory of the case, is that Zimmerman (legally but stupidly) confronted Martin to ask what he was doing, Martin took offence, two hotheads verbally escalated when they should have de-escalated, and blows were thrown. The tape starts when Martin has already won the fistfight and is trying to finish the job, and we see Zimmerman pull out a gun and finish it his way. Classical "fighting" scenario, except someone bought a gun to a fist fight. With reasonable doubt as to who threw the first punch, a clear acquittal under SYG.
Even if Zimmerman had verbally provoked Martin, he can still use force to defend himself if
"Such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant"
Zimmerman pinned down by Martin (thus unable to escape) and having his head bashed fits that condition. Note this is NOT a Stand Your Ground rule -- a person who has provoked another DOES have a duty to retreat; this rule is intended to cover inability to safely escape, not unwillingness.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In Zimmerman's case we have abundant evidence that his story was accurate. We have testimony from Trayvon's friend who was on the phone with him shortly before the encounter that Trayvon made it all the way home and decided to double back to attack Zimmerman. We have an eyewitness who saw the fight from a distance who saw (based on the colors of the clothing he saw etc.) Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, beating him. We have the reports of paramedics and medical examiners showing injuries to Zimmerman consistent with him being grounded and pounded, while the only injuries on Trayvon's body (apart from the obvious bullet to the chest) were to his knuckles.
It was pretty much an open and shut case, and were it not for public pressure (and protests by advocacy groups funded by and working directly with Eric Holder and other members of the Obama DoJ) it would have never gone to trial, and rightly so.
Edit: source on the DoJ's involvement https://theweek.com/articles/462236/did-justice-department-incite-2012-trayvon-martin-protests
That's fair. I was thinking more when the case originally blew up in the media and the facts that came out at trial (the injury details) weren't as clear.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link