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 -
From the video it does look like it ends as a mere scuffle. The video also shows the initial aggressor start in a shouting match from across the street. Then, the aggressor decides to charge, sprinting through traffic to cross the street, and tackles the shooter in 2.5-ish seconds. After he tackles the shooter, the aggressor is in a position on top of the shooter with his right arm around the shooter's head behind his neck. The aggressors left arm and hand are not in frame. Seems like there is at least one cut in the video.
We can't see exactly what is going on from the angle, but roughly 1 second after sprinting across the street, tackling the shooter, and assaulting him a firearm goes off. It is possible the pistol was being drawn while the aggressor was sprinting, while they were on the ground, or it is possible the aggressor crossed the street in response to a pistol being drawn. The aggressor may have struggled over the firearm. He did not retreat to the presence of a firearm, nor react to being shot. He still had to be dragged off and restrained by bystanders after being shot once in the gut.
I imagine the state does prefer fistfights not escalate to shootings. I also imagine most people that don't want to sit, take a beating, and trust that the person assaulting them has the wherewithal to not do something stupid like kill them-- such as bash their head into the ground, draw a weapon when in a position of dominance, and so on.
Like the state, I also prefer fistfights not escalate to shootings. Unlike this state, I don't think it is reasonable to sprint across traffic to tackle a man 20 years your senior with legal protection. That victims should just trust you bro and in the 3-4 seconds that an altercation occurs you are expected to allow a stranger to wail on you a bit, because he probably is not going to kill you.
A different setting and I may agree with you outright. Two guys getting hammered at a bar and one of them escalating to homicide is pretty generally wrong. Here, we have a middle aged guy at a protest doing protest things, like being loud. Is it reasonable to assume that protestors that assault you won't do you serious bodily harm? Statistically, like all physical altercations, of course, but the state has nothing close to a reasonable assurance that you won't be the fellow whose head hits the pavement too hard, a protestor is particularly deranged with nothing to lose, or he has a knife in his back pocket he's been waiting to pull that you can't see.
If we're arguing about something as strangers and you cover 30ft, across traffic, at a full sprint to tackle me it sounds reasonable for me to assume you may very well aim to to do me severe bodily harm. It is unreasonable to sprint across roads to assault strangers with the protection and backing of the state. If you put me on the ground while I am carrying a firearm, doubly so. This is not the modal fist fight.
Now he's in Mass, so he's probably fucked. Unfortunately, I think providing aid to the assailant will be used against him. Only firing one shot to stop the threat might have been a prudent, measured defense of his self, or it might be argued it means he didn't really consider the threat was all too great.
Some twitter people have been saying this, but it is very unlikely. We see the pistol, holstered, at 0:21 after the guy is first tackled. So for it to be true (and there's no evidence it is), Hayes would have had to draw the pistol, then re-holster it before being tackled.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link