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 -
Okay but this is the comment you're replying to:
Bystander effect aside, you can be an MMA fighter and still be paralysed by the fear factor in such circumstances if you've never been in one in the first place. Very important to keep in mind that one is a contained, monitored environment where everyone has to follow the same rules and medical help will be readily available when necessary. One the other hand, a young man raised in the slums of Rio and who had seen stabbings, people being beat to death, etc. and had to fight for himself a few times would still stand a better chance than the big macho guy who does MMA on the weekends if it was an unexpected, deadly encounter. Because he won't be as prone to hesitate or be paralysed with the fear response. And he will be be more prone to reflexively use his environment and to fight hard and dirty instead of trying to follow a mechanistic, paint by numbers system.
[ @The_Nybbler makes similar points ]
To clarify, can you answer 2 questions?
How common are killings in similar circumstances -- a single, unarmed individual kills complete strangers on a modestly crowded bus/train after exhibiting unfocussed threatening behaviour?
In light of your answer to (1), and the unfortunate common presence of disturbed individuals on public transit, how do you estimate the probability that any given passenger (other than Neely) would have died on that trip?
From this side of the screen:
I was unable to find any examples in a brief search -- plenty of cases of group violence, armed killings, or direct person-to-person conflicts, but none resembling the facts at hand. Presumably it's happened -- just due to the huge numbers of encounters.
Given that I can't find any examples, and that this type of thing must happen thousands of times a year, I'll put the individual death probability at < 0.01%.
If you can get a better handle on (1), then I'm happy to update.
I'm not sure I follow. Perhaps I'm misreading your post and if so, apologies in advance.
Are you asking whether it's rational for one to fear for their life given the stats that show how many civies actually die in these situations? It's a hostile scenario, you're in a crowded train where everyone could very well go into panic mode and make your ability to maneuver that much harder. Even if you remember the stats at the face of your fight or flight instinct, that's no guarantee that things won't escalate to fatal proportions in this situation. A crazy person going crazy in the middle of a crowd is not being rational, so if you don't already have any experience subduing crazies amidst a crowd, odds are you'd act irrationally too just to save yourself.
People have fears disproportionate to actual threats all the time. For example, some people won't go to the beach because they're convinced sharks will eat them. And when they're reported to fear for their life when a wave breaks over their feet, we acknowledge that, but with a footnote that the fear is irrational, and sharks aren't really a danger of much magnitude in that situation.
There is an urgent societal need to (as much as possible) ground such feelings in reality, in part because mortal danger justifies a lot of otherwise forbidden behavior. One's dog phobia, for example, does not justify shooting your neighbor's pet when it barks.
Exactly, and this is why traditional common law construct of "reasonable man" exists.
If you end before a court worthy of this name, judge and jury would not ask: "were you afraid" but "would reasonable man in this situation be afraid of death or great bodily harm?"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They usually do the killing in the station, where it's easier because they can just push people onto the tracks. On the train its harder to successfully kill someone.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm unsure if this framing illuminates much. If I, without your consent and neither any pressing need nor benefit to you or anyone else, performed a procedure on your house that gives it a <0.01% p.a. chance of spontaneously collapsing the tiny probability of something happening in your lifetime would not be a convincing defence. That the risk is small doesn't matter when there is no reason why anyone should tolerate being exposed to it in the first place, which is a significant difference to things like driving which you brought up in the post above.
Agreed. My issue is with the casual use of "fearing for ones life", which cheapens and reduces our ability to del with what should be very serious issues. In the case at hand, it seems reasonable for the passengers to have restrained Neely, as some violence was arguably reasonably anticipated from him. Shooting him, for example, would not have been justified though, and we should, IMO, calibrate our language to maintain respect for human life.
I don't understand your objection. "Calibrating our language to maintain respect for human life" is exactly why "fearing for your life" is such a powerful argument these days.
Exactly. It should be a very powerful argument, because preservation of life is a central social value. Like any powerful tool, it must be guarded against abuse.
Even killing someone, ordinarily one of the most forbidden actions available, is often accepted under such circumstances. But we attempt to prevent abuse by some combination of conditions that the threat be, for example, immanent, articulable, and clear to a reasonable person.
The last 3 years of sociofinancial policy disaster pursuant to Covid is a recent lapse proving otherwise.
Catastrophism (an attack on what it means to be "reasonable") works; that's why the last 40 years of social policy have been primarily driven by it- "if you let your kids outside they'll get kidnapped", "deadnaming is literally killing trans people", etc.
"Preservation of life" has transitioned from being a social value to an overriding social value, and appealing to it has improperly elevated those claims to veto power.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What about "fearing for one's life or grievous bodily harm"? Would that make any difference? Pointing out that only so many people are actually killed by such criminals misses the point.
GBH is certainly relevant to the conversation, but the central point was limited to the statement "we were scared for our lives", so to that end focusing only on those killed is indeed appropriate. Danger of grievous bodily harm and danger of death ought to correlate very well though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’m surprised you couldn’t find any, I think some twenty-five people got pushed onto tracks in NYC last year with several casualties. There was also the widely publicized mass shooting last spring, which somehow everyone survived but is exactly the kind of “unstable person trying to kill people” story that sticks in people’s head.
Odds are still very low, but normal people don’t pull out the calculator and reason probabilistically when a crazy person starts yelling at them. Being trapped in an enclosed space with an aggressive, unstable person is pretty scary for most people, especially if they haven’t had years of exposure to combat situations like yourself.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link