site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35390 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 3, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It does not not make him look good, but the evidence still suggests his life was in danger and he acted in self defense. It's the same thing as the Rittenhouse case or George Zimmerman. Putting oneself into danger or risk taking behavior does not invalidate the self defense argument.

This isn't the same as the Rittenhouse case, at all. It amazes me that the misinformation still floats around...

part of the problem is that had I argued the opposite, then I'd have people tell me it is like the Rittenhouse case. TBH I don't care that much anyway, given I strongly dislike BLM I hope he is pardoned, the contravening details or facts are otherwise irrelevant to me

part of the problem is that had I argued the opposite, then I'd have people tell me it is like the Rittenhouse case

So it's OK to use a bad example (pulling from misinformation) because other people would of?

Am I understanding you correctly?

(sorry for the late response)

It’s both correct? One key difference is Rittenhouse clearly retreated. And then after the first shot you had mutual combat where honestly depending who died both sides could claim plausible self defense.

But the same in that it’s late at night. Armed people on both sides who don’t trust each other. Both cases had behavior I guess I would describe as wilding behavior so it’s tough to tell what’s a threat. Kenosha I would describe a lot of the action terroristic/violent (burning buildings). Both took place where normal people had legitimate interest in the area. The Uber driver apparently had dropped off a passenger. Kenosha residents had their public square and often businesses being attacked.

I think one big difference is in Kenosha the guy who initiated with Rittenhouse was not a good guy and was attacking him. This incident I think the victim was more of a larper walking around with a rifle acting tough.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#C

9.31.2

Did not provoke the person whom the force was used

So I think the case comes down to did he knowingly try to provoke the encounter. Did he speed into the crowd too fast. And where his prior texts of talking about triggering an encounter gives a lot of information on his state of mind.

It's hard to say, which is why this is so hotly contested still.

He drove his car into the crowd at 10mph, but slowed down, stopping and then was approached by Garrett Foster, who may have raised his gun at him just 18 inches from the driver side window. Being an Uber driver, his motive could have been he was in a hurry.

as someone on twitter notes:

How could he have known the gun wasn't loaded or the safety was on? It doesn't matter to the legal analysis. What matters is if the person using self defense had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. The object of that fear doesn't actually need to be a real threat.

I looked into it more. I think before provoking you have to asks whether the victim ever actually crossed into threatening. There’s no video evidence. A bad picture with gun not entirely parallel. Basically a he said/she said. And I’m not sure on the legal definition he needs for proving self defense. It’s a different standard I believe than reasonable doubt.

With him sitting their 6 seconds I’m not seeing the provocation before the issue now.

I agree on the not loaded. He wouldn’t know that and if some points a gun at me I am going to assume it’s loaded.

I’m not a gun guy. But I think you are correct. Which I’m guessing meaning he could have quickly done something to pull a round into chamber.

Either isn’t important for the other persons view of risks.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats