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 -
There's a real risk of dying if you are tackled onto pavement. Young healthy people die every day from less acute trauma. The tackler should be charged with the crime they committed.
But I'm comfortable asserting the appropriate (and 'legal' I suppose although I don't care about that) response to being tackled onto the pavement at a political protest is not to immediately shoot your tackler multiple times in the gut.
It wasn't out of nowhere, it wasn't the middle of the night, they weren't all alone, the attacker wasn't slamming Hayes' head into the pavement repeatedly - a George Zimmerman situation this is not.
Also:
No, the reality that 'two other pro-Israeli demonstrators' were readily available to pull off the attacker means the tackled fella was not in danger of his life after surviving the initial impact with the ground.
Yeah, great point. I wouldn't convict this guy in court if you offered to pay me. I wouldn't have been at the protest, but I can put myself in the mindset and I might've shot the tackler too. Still, it's not absurd to me to have an arrest, investigation, and probably trial about this incident.
To that point - this guy bailed out for 5k and is facing 10 years max. I have more than one buddy who had bail set with a 0 behind this guys for things like repeat DUI or possession. I personally know at least one guy that was offered a plea deal for 12 years after DUI with injury and after a financial black hole of lawyering is serving 8.
In summary, if someone tackles you onto the pavement in the middle of the night when no one else is around and they start pounding your head into the pavement - by all means protect yourself by all available means! If someone tackles you in broad daylight and your buddies immediately start pulling him off you and you shoot him twice anyway - I would not take your case!
(I am not particularly predisposed toward charity for the argument 'trauma from the Holocaust made me do it' - but apparently Hayes doesn't even that going for him...)
Dude, come on, that's a bit much.
More options
Context Copy link
Many Australian districts have so-called "one punch" laws, in which punching someone once in an urban environment can result in you getting a jail sentence comparable in duration to what you'd expect for attempted murder (and the maximum sentence increases if you're intoxicated at the time).
Funnily enough, the last time I brought this up was in the comments of an ACX article, in which I was trying to argue that certain trans activists can be very aggressive and violent, and my interlocutor was trying to argue that a fit and healthy adult male punching a woman in her sixties in the face was no big deal.
When are we getting “chainsaw” laws? “Death note” laws?
You know this is Australia, right? If they haven't gotten around to it don't let them know they forgot to.
More options
Context Copy link
Licensing requirements to operate a chainsaw vary from state to state. A NSW chainsaw license may not necessarily entitle the holder to operate a chainsaw in Victoria.
Section 31 of the Crimes Act makes it an offence, punishable by a maximum of 10 years imprisonment, to intentionally or recklessly send or deliver a document threatening to kill or inflict serious bodily harm on any person.
(I understand it's an anime joke.)
Not sure if this is a shitpost, but there’s no license required to operate a chainsaw. Some employers/industries require you pass a training course, but there’s no state or federal government licensing programs like there is for say, forklifts.
Complete shitpost in response to a shitpost comment.
More options
Context Copy link
It appears that Queensland at least requires anyone operating a chainsaw professionally to have a license, as a requirement of the (state-run and required) workers compensation program. Western Australia seems to require it only for forestry workers specifically.
But as far as I can tell it's not true that there are different licenses per state; there is a national "chainsaw ticket".
Each state has different training courses, as education and training is run at a state level. However, the states try to standardise around a national framework.
Also, from what I can tell, there is no chainsaw “license” in any state or territory. There are only training course requirements in some states for certain industries. For chainsaws there’s various training courses ranging from basic handling and maintenance, to cutting fallen trees, to felling limbs, to felling entire trees. But these are all separate courses that can be taken either individually or as part of a larger training course for a higher certification or diploma.
The main difference between a license and a certification requirement is that without a certification, you’re unable to be hired in the relevant field, while without a license, you’re not legally allowed to perform the relevant task at all.
For example without a first aid certificate you might not be allowed to be hired as a life guard at a swimming centre. But without a forklift license you’re never legally permitted to operate a forklift even if it’s privately owned and on private property.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link