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 -
Yes, but if you commit a crime, and someone dies during the commission of that crime, then you have committed felony murder.
I think that's bullshit, but it's the law as it stands today.
I can see the case for a felony murder (or manslaughter) as a desirable law when the victims are innocent bystanders.
If you break into a home and give an old person a fatal hard attack, that should be manslaughter. If you break into a home and your accomplice is packing and starts shooting, it is reasonable to assume that you either new they were armed or accepted the possibility and thus have some part in the murder.
It gets murkier if the causal link between the death and the crime is more complex. If you steal a car, drive it safely and someone runs a red light, crashes into the stolen car and dies, I don't think it is reasonable to blame you for it.
If an accomplice of you dies, for example by falling of a roof and breaking their neck, then your relationship to the accomplice matters. If you are a hardened criminal who convinced a kid to climb to that window and open the door from the inside, I feel manslaughter charges are appropriate. If you were on equal level with your accomplice, then it should not be held against you if they kill their stupid selves during a criminal act, unless you had a more direct hand in their death.
I don't think it is reasonable to presume that the fellow BLM protesters coerced a veteran to stand there with a rifle. The more likely story is that they tolerated him being armed, which would have them on the hook if the rifleman shot anyone (provided they also get convicted of a felony), but not if he just got himself killed.
Of course, this is just my gut feeling what would be just, the law is probably different.
Makes sense. They went after literally everyone at the Charlottesville protest based on that theory, but there was zero attempt to go after even the ringleaders when actual, organized BLM groups killed kids.
We're long past the point of legal principles mattering, but yours is one I could definitely live with.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, but the law as it stands today is also that if you commit a crime, the local DA may at their discretion simply ignore it if they don't think it's moral or feasible to convict you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link