DragonfireKai's recent activity
-
Comment on Thoughts on stand your ground laws in ~talk
-
Comment on Thoughts on stand your ground laws in ~talk
DragonfireKai Link ParentSYG laws don't revoke the burden of self defense, what it does is remove the duty to retreat in the face of life threatening danger. Let's look at it from an absurdist example. Let's say that...The law should hold people accountable for allowing innocuous situations escalate to fatal violence. Just like you get charged for assault if you escalate a verbal confrontation to a physical one, whoever escalates it from fisticuffs to a fatal encounter should be held responsible too. If someone kills someone without being put in mortal danger, then they should be charged with at least manslaughter.
SYG laws don't revoke the burden of self defense, what it does is remove the duty to retreat in the face of life threatening danger.
Let's look at it from an absurdist example. Let's say that reddit has been hiring big burly men to stab to death people who have abdicated it in favor of tildes. You're trying to get groceries at the super market, and a big muscular guy with a nasty looking knife sees you and shouts: "Reddit sends its regards, prepare to die!" at which point, he charges at you. This is an absurdist scenario in which any reasonable person would find themselves in and feel like they're probably going to get stabbed to death in the immediate future. Now, as any reasonable person living in such a fucked up, anarchistic, absurdist world where people are being butchered in the street by corporate hired psychopaths would would do, you're carrying a gun. So you shoot the guy before he gets a chance to practice his amateur proctology skills on you. In a SYG state, the DA looks at your case and says "Yeah, that dude was totally going to kill you, so we're not going to prosecute." In a non-SYG state, the DA looks at your case and says "Yeah, that dude was totally going to kill you, but you didn't run away, and you didn't have your back to the wall, so I'm going to get you for manslaughter."
It operates just as you mention, responsibility for the confrontation lies with the person who escalated the confrontation to lethal levels. In the McGlockton case, Drejka's defense is that McGlockton shoving him to the pavement from behind constituted McGlockton escalating their confrontation to the life threatening level, and that he was defending himself from further attack. The only reason SYG is applicable here, is that McGlockton didn't immediately follow up his assault. In a non-SYG state, Drejka would need to prove that retreating from McGlockton was impossible, whereas in this case, he merely needs to prove standard self defense, that he was in a situation where any reasonable man would feel like his life was in danger.
In the Martin case, SYG was never invoked in court, because the scenario that the defense established, that Martin escalated the conflict to lethal levels by pinning Zimmerman to the sidewalk and bouncing his head off the concrete, was a scenario where there was nowhere to retreat to. So Zimmerman was acquitted on a standard self defense strategy, not one based on SYG.
-
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~books
DragonfireKai LinkI'm reading So You've Been Publicly Shamed by Jon Ronson, and Unsong by Scott Alexander. Shamed is very interesting, because it's written in a very soul searching manner, Ronson came up with the...I'm reading So You've Been Publicly Shamed by Jon Ronson, and Unsong by Scott Alexander.
Shamed is very interesting, because it's written in a very soul searching manner, Ronson came up with the idea of the book when he thought the the power of the internet to shame people was some new equalizer that was going to be a great force for good after he used it to get some academics who were using his identity on a twitter-bot to shut it down, so he resolved to get right in the heart of the next major public shaming outrage he found, and things got dark, fast.
Unsong is a web serial alternate history novel where the Apollo 8 mission, rather than passing by the moon, crashed into the great crystal sphere surrounding the earth, allowing God's divine light back into the world, and bringing back angels, demons, and the power of the Kabbalah. It's a web serial, so sometimes the prose is clunky, but it's also hilarious at times, shades of Terry Pratchett. Like when the forces of hell take over Siberia, and march on Moscow, but the Soviets hold the line, prompting president Nixon to form an alliance with the devil to wipe out the soviet menace, thus spawning the idiom that "only Nixon could go to Hell."
-
Comment on Right-wing groups with guns plan to impersonate and infiltrate Antifa at Portalnd rally this weekend in ~news
DragonfireKai Link ParentBe above reproach. Bring no weapons, not even the plausibly deniable ones that fringe protesters love. No batons, not bike locks, no signs mounted on curious robust and nail ridden 2x4s. Don't...Be above reproach. Bring no weapons, not even the plausibly deniable ones that fringe protesters love. No batons, not bike locks, no signs mounted on curious robust and nail ridden 2x4s. Don't touch anyone, don't break anything, don't box people in, and don't associate with anyone who does those things.
Do you know what separates successful civil rights actions from actions that just got dismissed as riots? When someone came to clock a protester with a rock or a baton, the protester didn't fight back. They caught a beating, but when the public saw it, they empathized with the person being beaten and public sentiment shifts towards the side being beaten. When the video shows some asshole throwing a rock at someone and then getting swarmed, the public looks at it and says "what a bunch of assholes" and public sentiment becomes contingent on who can plausibly deny the extremists in their midst more effectively.
If your cause is worth throwing a punch for, it's worth taking a punch for, and right now, you will do more for your side taking a punch than you will throwing one. Of course, if everyone adheres to this, then you've got two sides protesting without being violent, and public sentiment will be determined by other things than empathizing with protesters, which is the ideal situation, unless you're afraid that without tricking your opponent into resorting to violence you won't be able to prevail on the strength of your argument alone.
-
Comment on How do you discuss open minded topics with close minded people? in ~talk
DragonfireKai LinkScott Alexander at Slate Star Codex wrote a good post about the scales of argument, and the purposes of quasi-political statements based on effort and medium. It's worth a read. To look at your...Scott Alexander at Slate Star Codex wrote a good post about the scales of argument, and the purposes of quasi-political statements based on effort and medium. It's worth a read.
To look at your example, a bumper sticker is not a great messaging format. Maybe it's better than Twitter (shots fired!), but it's certainly below even facebook in terms of the capability of the medium to convey a complex message, and it allows for not real counter point that doesn't veer into the criminal, (i.e. slapping a "we've only got one world" bumper sticker on the person's car.
It's hard to say what that person really meant, and it's heavily context sensitive in a medium where the context is unavailable. Maybe they're a theologian who's upset at the inroads made into religious studies by people pushing ecology. Maybe they're a conservationist who's frustrated at all those fucking hippies who get in the way of you stripping a blighted tree before it spreads to the rest of the forest because they know that mother earth has a plan for the forest and that plan doesn't involve humans removing any trees, at all. Maybe it's a climate change activist who's trying to remind their fellows to not get sucked into patterns of rote dogma. Maybe they're a hick who's trying to tell people that if God wants them to stop rolling coal, then God would tell them in a way that doesn't involve scientists.
What context is necessary for you to approve of that bumper sticker? And, since you're probably not going to know the context, would your life had been better if you just recognized the bumper sticker for what it was, not an attempt to convert anyone, but a signal to a specific group that you are not part of?
-
Comment on Right-wing groups with guns plan to impersonate and infiltrate Antifa at Portalnd rally this weekend in ~news
DragonfireKai Link ParentThe simple solution is to not give in to the incitement. If you don't respond to their incitement, if there's going to be violence, then they have to initiate it.The simple solution is to not give in to the incitement. If you don't respond to their incitement, if there's going to be violence, then they have to initiate it.
-
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~news
DragonfireKai LinkHonestly, these to me look like just really shitty jokes. It bothers me that she thought they were funny, in the same way that it bothers me that Daniel Tosh thinks his jokes are funny. That said,...Honestly, these to me look like just really shitty jokes. It bothers me that she thought they were funny, in the same way that it bothers me that Daniel Tosh thinks his jokes are funny. That said, I don't wish for either Tosh or Jeong to be fired, I'm also probably going to ignore anything either of them does, but I don't actively wish harm upon them.
What really bothers me about this situation is that it seems like Jeong's getting off lightly from the internet's two-minute hate because of who she is, in spite of what she did, where other people, most notably in my immediate remembrance, Justine Sacco, who had her life absolutely destroyed for a joke that was, in my opinion, at least a little funny, and certainly leaps and bounds ahead of anything that Jeong or James Gunn recently got lit up for, have not been so guarded.
The optimist in me thinks that the kind of shift from bloodthirsty scalp collecting twitter mob that consumed Sacco, to the "Maybe he shouldn't get fired" reaction that Gunn got, to "We'll stand by Sarah." is a sign that people are recognizing the danger of that mentality and trying to ween themselves of the opiate that is outrage.
The other 95% of me has a bridge I'd like to sell to the optimist in me.
-
Comment on How's your day going? in ~talk
DragonfireKai LinkI've got the theater all to myself for four hours, and rather than working on my script, I'm typing this. Send help...I've got the theater all to myself for four hours, and rather than working on my script, I'm typing this. Send help...
-
Comment on Gaming’s toxic men, explained - Experts tackle the phenomenon of angry men, trolls, racists and misogynists in the video game industry in ~games
DragonfireKai Link ParentHave you considered the possibility that for some of them, that's a perk, rather than a penalty? A lot of gamers are still outcasts, and the only thing that's changed is that as this social...too many gamers are used to having everything their way, and either can't or won't accept that gaming is no longer exclusively for or about them. They need to grow up and learn to share if they don't want to be made outcasts again.
Have you considered the possibility that for some of them, that's a perk, rather than a penalty? A lot of gamers are still outcasts, and the only thing that's changed is that as this social activity that basically served as their ghetto has been colonized by more mainstream groups, they're finding themselves marginalized from the space they used to feel safe in. And they would rather be outcasts in their outcast space, than be outcasts with their space taken away from them?
I can see a lot of parallels between your theory of toxicity and the backlash that's being leveled at perceived gentrifiers in the Seattle area. The LGBT community is being rough on the tech community because they want to keep Capitol Hill gay, just like the black community were rough on the LGBT community because they wanted to keep Capitol Hill black, just like the Catholics were tough on the incoming black families because they wanted to keep Capitol Hill Catholic Hill. Everyone would rather live in their own cultural space and be poor, then be pushed out of the space when it becomes more wealthy and popular, and threatening to shun those people has never been an effective strategy to placate them. I don't think that ascribing entitlement to people is the solution to resistance against cultural incursion, because I don't think it's entitlement, I think, for the people you describe, it's desperation.
-
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~talk
DragonfireKai LinkThe current standard in the US for speech is that speech is protected unless it is inciting "Immanent Lawless Action." Which is a good standard in my opinion. It seeks to curtail speech at the...The current standard in the US for speech is that speech is protected unless it is inciting "Immanent Lawless Action." Which is a good standard in my opinion. It seeks to curtail speech at the least invasive point. Which should be the standard for any limiting of fundamental rights.
In any situation where the government is a true sovereign, the government poses a greater potential threat to liberty than any individual, or group. So the question I ask before empowering the government to limit fundamental rights is this: "What would Dick Cheney do with this?" Although now it might be more prudent to change that to: "What would Donald Trump do with this power?"
By expanding the test for non-protected speech beyond immanent lawless action, it would be trivial for the government to hold activists and artists accountable for the actions of others. Imagine if the president could use the criminal actions of illegal immigrants not merely as a dog whistle to advocate for his policy, but as a blunt instrument by which he could limit the speech of those who advocate for more immigration, or worse, imprison them? Imagine if the next time a person of color shoots a police officer, he can use it as an excuse to pull every Kendrick Lamar album from stores? A world where that is permissible frightens me a lot more than one in which some assholes with tiki torches can be racist in public without advocating for direct immediate action.
-
Comment on What's currently upsetting you? in ~talk
DragonfireKai Link ParentIt's been somewhat resolved. I went to a trusted friend who knew all parties involved, and she told me a lot of things I didn't know about both the artistic director and the director, and while...It's been somewhat resolved. I went to a trusted friend who knew all parties involved, and she told me a lot of things I didn't know about both the artistic director and the director, and while the stuff about the artistic director was nothing that I hadn't seen some variation of, the stuff about the director was pretty eye opening. It turns out he's one of those self-centered "woker than thou" liberals who uses his progressive cred to put himself in a position where he's beyond criticism for his bad behavior. I suspect what I was sensing from him in terms of emotional authenticity was actually manipulation. One of the shitty things he was known for in his last stint directing for the theater was doing exactly what he did to me to another local actor who was a mutual friend of ours. Up until now, the only people who knew what really went down then were the director and artistic director.
So after a very cordial production meeting where I avoided talking with the director, I pulled the artistic director aside and explained my anger about the situation. She then told me that the director had never told her that he had offered the role to me, and they had been in regular contact during the week that they took to make a decision, but they hadn't talked about me until the final day, all their other conversations were about finding other actors to fill the role. I talked about his inappropriate question, and she also admitted that it was a recurring problem with him, he uses his credibility derived from his work with disadvantaged populations to act uncomfortably familiar with a lot of people in our theater community, like it's ok for him to ask that, because he's someone who's trusted by so many. She counselled him about when she brought him back for the production. She's livid about how things went, but at this point, we both agree that we're in too precarious of a position, and too far down the road to do anything drastic, but I told her that once I'm done with this production, I don't want to work with him in any capacity again. She understood.
I've decided against trying to seek out any closure with the director. If he wants to have a come to jesus moment with me, he'll have to seek it out. Otherwise, I'm going to get through this production, and hopefully he'll never work here again.
-
Comment on What's currently upsetting you? in ~talk
DragonfireKai LinkI work a couple jobs, one is in a theater, although I have no aspirations of acting. The theater's upcoming production was having a bitch and a half's time casting a role, which demographically, I...I work a couple jobs, one is in a theater, although I have no aspirations of acting. The theater's upcoming production was having a bitch and a half's time casting a role, which demographically, I fit. So the director asks to audition me. I say, what the heck, I like these people, and they're in a spot, why not see if I can help them out. It's the artistic equivalent of signing up to be a bone marrow donor, in my mind.
The audition goes great, it's a lot of fun, save for an awkward moment where the director asks me an inappropriate question about my background. We talk about scheduling, and if I can get it cleared with my other job, and arrange for more consistent transportation than the bus, I've got the part. So I start calling in favors, I get a vehicle to borrow, I get my boss at my non-art job to rework my schedule so I can do it, I let the director now, and he just needs to clear the casting with the Executive Artistic Director, who's my boss at the theater. They then proceed to not talk for a week. I nudge both of them, to try and figure out what's happening, and then 18 hours before the first rehearsal is due to start, I get a text from the artistic director saying that the director has decided to go in another direction with the casting. Five minutes later, I get a call from the director, who tells me that the artistic director forbid him from casting me. So, one of them is lying to me, and I'm going to be working closely with both of them in the upcoming months as the theater moves forward with the production.
The artistic director has been someone that I could count on to at least be honest about how the vampiric nature of an arts non profit was going to fuck me at any given moment, for instance, I haven't gotten paid in the last month because they screwed up their budget and we're trying to limp into our big annual fundraiser. However, my gut tells me that the director's emotional arc has been more predictable. But I have no history with the director. The only event I worked that he directed during my tenure at the theater was his improv troupe, which had a couple members who made similarly disparaging remarks of another individual who shares my background. So it's entirely possible that the director's an asshole who likes to jerk people like me around, because he associates himself with those kind of people, and if he's the one who pulled the plug on me, then I have to consider that as a possibility.
On the other hand, if it was the artistic director who took me off the table in favor of bringing in a professional actor from across the state, who's going to require pay and housing when they can't even afford to pay me right now, well, that's just insulting. Especially after I bent over backwards to accommodate them when they asked me.
So, we've got our weekly production meeting today, and it'll be the first time the three of us are in the same room since all this went down, and I'm not sure how I'm going to handle it. All I know is that the more I think about it, the angrier I get.
-
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~news
DragonfireKai Link ParentBut should the average renter be at the federal minimum wage?But should the average renter be at the federal minimum wage?
The idea behind self defense statutes, of which SYG is a subset, is not merely that they thought their life was in danger, it's that "A reasonable man would feel that their life was threatened in that situation." Which is still subjective, but less solipsistic.
The real problem in self defense cases, is that juries are instructed to only consider the moment of action, which means only the seconds immediately preceding the shooting. For example, in the Daniel Shaver shooting, the jury didn't see the complete body cam video. They were only allowed to consider the moment where Shaver, whom police had been told had a firearm, had been instructed to keep his hands in view, suddenly grabbed at his waistband. Now, a reasonable person who finds themselves, with only that context, in the shoes of a police officer in that moment, might be afraid that Shavers was going to pull a concealed weapon and shoot you. However, a reasonable person who found themselves in the totality of the situation, where Shavers was clearly drunk, disoriented, blubbering, and trying to follow a dozen conflicting commands could surmise that he was trying to pull his pants up.
The problem isn't with SYG, or fearing for your life, the problem is that the juries are only being shown a fraction of the context.