the_Culture_is_great
No bio...
User ID: 3228
the_Culture_is_great
10hr ago
I don't think you need to be a negative utilitarian, a lot depends on exactly how bad the person is vs how bad you think prison is. And as I mentioned elsewhere, prison is very very bad.
Wireheading city could be better than prison, but fraught with potential issues. Pure pointless hedonic pleasure isn't the same as utility. But honestly, less extreme versions of this are not particularly objectionable, and could even be compared to progressive harm reduction approaches (way way different in degree though).
the_Culture_is_great
10hr ago
modest increase in the prison population could fix these problems
It didn't work before, but it might work now!
Repeating that logic is how the US got into this situation.
I'm not saying don't lock the serial offenders up! But there needs to be better planning on how to target and convict them specifically. There's a high risk of collateral damage to people who are essentially harmless.
the_Culture_is_great
10hr ago
The US is both over and under-policed, depending on the exact time and location you look
Exactly what I mean when I say it's more complicated.
I do think that long rail of terrible offenders should be locked up, but identifying and punishing them is a more complicated problem than just "be meaner".
the_Culture_is_great
1d ago
Some enormous societal failure has occurred.
Agree 100%
Step one on the long road to fixing it is institutionalizing the crazy homeless people rather than letting them self medicate with hard drugs while living in filth and stealing to afford more drugs
Also hard-agree (though I do think some consideration to their well being is still warranted)
And imprisoning the non-crazy ones.
I become skeptical that the problem is this simple. Maybe 8x Canada will fix it, but what if you have to go further? What if you have to get up to 10x, 15x 20x? Are you willing to pay that cost?
I bring up the comparison just because it seems like other countries do better, or at least not much worse, while having much lower incarceration rates. If you think that the nature of the US makes it impossible, what factors make it so?
the_Culture_is_great
1d ago
Would you agree with the 4% if I softened my language from "rape" -> "sexual victimization" like the report uses? I suppose the "willing inmate-guard" relationships don't count for as much, but I still have concerns there.
And I would still argue that a 2.6% chance of "actual" rape is still very bad.
I challenge someone to refute the central point which is "Prison really, really sucks. Yes even if you're mentally ill and on the street." Any arguments would also have to explain why these people are not trying to get into prison with any regularity.
I think you're painting far too rosy a picture of prison, and eliding over massive potentially negative harms (such as the abhorrent 4% chance of rape every year edit: less abhorrent, but still bad - 4% "sexual victimization", 2.6% chance of what most would typically call "rape" ). I think treating prison as anything but an extremely negative experience for the majority of inmates is not realistic.
I agree that that mental illness and freedom have a complicated philosophical relationship. My general attitude would be results-focused:
- Would going to prison disincentive others from this behaviour? (potentially for the "just assholes", no for the crazies)
- Would it help this individual in the future (like you mention in your post, but I'm very confident the answer is usually no)
- Does it prevent this person from causing harm to others? (yes)
- Does it give satisfaction to the people this person has harmed? (Unlike other lefty leaning folks, I think retribution does have a place in criminal punishment, but there's a very very high bar for it. I don't think yelling at people on the street passes it. For murder, rape, serious assault? Yes screw that person. For yelling like a crazy person? Probably not, let's be calm and just try to help everyone involved as much as is practically possible)
- Does it harm the person in question (yes, definitely)
- How much is this going to cost vs just putting them up in a cheap room and telling them (forcing them) to go home when they get drunk/high/crazy?
This is a tough question, but the answer isn't to stop considering the rights of the homeless/mentally ill person at all.
Can I also ask, on a totally different tack, in what sense is it unjust to send a law-breaker to prison? Why would you be morally 'bad' to do so?
If you're getting the impression that I'm anti-prison or anti-punishment in general I'm not. But it has to be justified, and that justification should include the cost to the law-breaker themselves. It's the general idea of proportionality - it's pretty uncontroversial the the punishment should fit the crime, and if you're discussing changing punishments you can't just saw "whatever I don't care". You actually have to suggest what's appropriate.
I've mentioned in other comments - I agree the current level of tolerance and punishment for this anti-social behaviour is too low, and this is also an issue that affects me personally. The answer isn't prison forever, or forced labour, you have to have a limit somewhere.
the_Culture_is_great
1d ago
But if my only 2 choices are "throw them in prison forever" or "build free mental health clinics and maybe they will choose to use them
I would argue that if you pick door 1 in this thought experiment, you are a bad person. Almost certainly from a utilitarian perspective (life in prison vs small annoyances * some number of people, unless the number of people is ludicrously high).
I also want to stress that I'm not really caring about root causes either. Another solution that solves the problem in 1-2 years, if there was political will, and is also not abhorrent is: Build cheap-ass housing, screw the NIMBYs (probably compensate them tho), force them off the street.
The primary purpose of the housing isn't to fix the root cause. It's to make the force them off the street part morally justifiable because you've given them another option. (Plus it is likely to help the root cause, but that's not a load-bearing part of the argument).
the_Culture_is_great
1d ago
On a personal level prioritization of care is right and good. What kind of world would be be in if it was morally wrong to care more about your wife!
Buying jewellery for your wife instead giving change to the crackheads on the street! Sure perfectly fine! I never give change out, I too prioritize myself and very much dislike the incentives that giving change creates.
Shooting the yelling crazy guy on sight because your children heard him say the F-word? Obviously obviously wrong. You'd call the cops on someone who did that.
There's a bar between those two extremes somewhere, if you set it low enough, even for the street crazies, that makes you a bad person. It would actually help if you specified where exactly you'd put it.
(I also think my argument here is giving the impression that my bar is very high, but it's absolutely not. I think the tolerance level is currently too high, and should be lowered, but you just can't drop it to the floor).
the_Culture_is_great
1d ago
If you're going to make this argument I you can't elide those details and still argue in good faith.
Actually spelling out at least the broad outlines like you did is good, it gives some sane limits and allows us to discuss actual tradeoffs.
all solutions that removes these people from the street are superior to those that let them there, including some that cross moral lines
This is exactly how I read what OP wrote, and it's obviously abhorrent if you allow solutions like "shoot on sight", or "Vagrant? Straight to the mines, no appeal".
the_Culture_is_great
1d ago
Sorry I wasn't clear, I'm actually not trying to focus on the root cause, I agree that focusing on the causes doesn't help in the short term.
I'm agreeing that you should be mean and force people out, but that you're not a good person if you don't have a limit on how mean to be.
I don't doubt people think you're a good person, but until you're going to say what your limit is, there's no way to judge. If you limit was all the way to "shoot on sight" that's bad - if it's "we can't move them until we have median-quality housing for them free of charge" that's unrealistically generous.
My line is somewhere around "they should have free housing options somewhat better than the hell-on-earth shelters that currently exist", then you can force them out.
the_Culture_is_great
1d ago
It's a huge huge difference though. Canada to the US is almost a 6x difference. Do the inherent population and cultural differences between Canada and the US really justify that? And even if they did, is more prison the best way to close the gap?
I think the more likely truth is that the US is well past the point of diminishing returns when it comes to prison capacity, and should instead spend in other areas, like trying to bring down housing cost and funding proper asylums (rather than prisons).
the_Culture_is_great
1d ago
I meant what I said.
There should be no surprise about why people would think you're a "bad person" then. Explicit lack of caring about others is kind of what makes one a "bad person".
I am also not okay with the status quo either, but I think there is some minimum level of support that must be provided (or possible to achieve) before you violate people's autonomy willy-nilly.
(my preferred solution is low-quality, cheap housing, that doesn't have to be right in the most expensive locations for some freaking reason. If you make that available that justifies a lot more force when removing people from public, as they actually have somewhere to go.)
the_Culture_is_great
1d ago
I worded it like that because the OP worded his comment like it was surprising people think these opinions are seen as "bad person" opinions. I think if you say "this group of people is annoying, I want them removed by the state and and don't care what happens to them" you've eliminated any possibility of having yourself seen as good, at best you're amoral. You need to at least give some thought to the well-being of these people, who in some cases are in their situation through only minor fault of their own.
When you say "Remove them first" I think you need to specify more precisely what that involves. There are absolutely moral lines you can cross. If you just get them to "move along" they just switch locations and annoy a different group of people. If you want to throw them all in prison you should keep in mind the cost (both moral and financial) of doing so.
That's not to say I think the desire is wrong at all! I also want these people removed, and I also don't think the standard western liberal approach is working. I think you need to provide some level of reasonable alternative before forcing people out of public spaces. I think that alternative does not exist in many places, due to housing and healthcare costs, and we are therefore forced to endure the ruin of our public spaces.
I think the correct approach is some combination of:
- provide housing as cheaply as possible (that standards for what is acceptable to provide should be much lower than they are today, but still provide a stable, permanent space) and the force these minorly disruptive people into them
- increase policing of minor offences like yelling at people, force them to move along (if they have their own space, then they have an actual private place to go to not annoy the public rather than just shifting the issue around)
- institutionalize the most severe ones - this is expensive and difficult, so you want to minimize it's necessity as much as possible
the_Culture_is_great
1d ago
I don't think the issue can be boiled down to "just keep more people in jail longer".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_incarceration_rate_with_other_countries
I mean sure it would probably work eventually, at great financial and moral cost, but the US is already topping the charts here. Presumably there are other solutions that would get you more bang for your buck.
the_Culture_is_great
1d ago
I'm a very bad person for wanting these guys removed
This doesn't make you a bad person, but
I genuinely don't care what the state does with these people
certainly doesn't make you a good one.
I also live in an area rife with these problems and I sympathize, and think that the state needs to do better at dealing with it. At the same time I wouldn't be fine with "literally any solution", there's got to be red lines about their treatment somewhere. I'm curious where exactly you'd draw the line, and how much you'd want the state to spend on it.
the_Culture_is_great
4d ago
Tonight when it came up that my fiance and I walked to the bar people were shocked.
It was a half hour! On a pleasant summer night!
the_Culture_is_great
4d ago
they facilitate coexistence between different groups with divergent aesthetic values
Beyond just different groups, even just between individuals. Most people have a few preferences that are weird or non-conforming, even if they're otherwise very similar. It's just nicer to not sweat the little things in general, and I'd argue the vast majority of tattoos are in that category.
the_Culture_is_great
4d ago
You just...you don't do that! That's your skin! It's not a piece of paper!
Those aren't actual reasons.
Do you want to look like the kind of person who gets tattoos?!
This very much depends on what kind of people around you have tattoos, and what kind of tattoos they are.
Getting a Bible verse tattooed on a discreet part of your body seems like the most innocuous kind of tattoo you could get,
Only if everyone around you is Christian. In my circles having a tattoo is whatever, but a religious tattoo is trashy
the_Culture_is_great
4d ago
I don't care about the judgment of trailer trash - I care about the judgment of the "normal" people (which OP is presenting himself as) in each location.
I think the normal person in "methed up area" will have a harsher opinion on tattoos than a "normal" person in a large city. A couple of reasons:
- rural areas tend to be older and more conservative
- cities have more distinct subcultures that are both not-trash (to the typical PMC) and have frequent tattoos (e.g. LGBT folks are much more likely to be tattooed, and are not judged harshly by the PMC)
- the types of tattoos you'll see on people in the city are likely different, and on average will be more tasteful to PMC eyes
- more PMC people will know of "respectable" people who have a small tattoo that disappears under their white collar every day - there are fewer white collar "respectable" jobs in rural areas
I don't think the exact nature of judgement between cities and rural areas is central to my point though. My point is really just that local cultures differences exist, and so you can't make a blanket "Anyone who gets a tattoo is comfortable with associating themselves in this way".
the_Culture_is_great
4d ago
basically no one walks in the area unless ...
I find it sad that so many places are like this. Mostly because the urban design sucks, but then even if you're willing to put up with that and walk anyways you're going to get judged negatively.
I'm weird in that I would want to walk places anyways (and have, on occasions where I'm outside my very walkable current location). It would be annoying to be judged for this.
I agree that you can add up all these little things together and make more accurate assumptions about less obvious things about a person. But basically everyone has a few non-standard preferences. By default you should avoid judging people on things that don't really matter, and they should do the same for you.
the_Culture_is_great
4d ago
Oh probably the absolute rate is more or less the same, but what I was trying to get at is that the types of people who have tattoos, and the treatment of those who do are likely different in a large liberal city vs a "methed up rural area."
TBH it was intentionally flippant, sorry.
I think when arguments around what aesthetics are good/bad in general, arguments cannot be made on personal preference alone. It read to me like someone who hates broccoli, and wants us to judge people who eat it by saying "first off all, it's gross and ugly". Perfectly fine as a personal opinion! But you have to demonstrate your aesthetic principles are widely held, or justified in some other way.
I mostly agree with you about Pete Hegseth. I don't care that he has tattoos, but I very much dislike the content.
the_Culture_is_great
4d ago
I think it's fully acceptable to take into account tattoos when judging people. However the blanket statements you're making seem way way too harsh.
First and foremost, they're ugly and I don't like them
K. Why should anyone care about your personal aesthetic preferences?
They indicate a higher level of criminality proportional to how many visible tattoos they have, along with other negative associations like substance abuse, domestic violence, and general "roughness"
This is true in a statistical sense. But the correlation is going to be noisy, and depending on your local culture entirely useless at the low end.
Anyone who gets a tattoo is comfortable with associating themselves in this way
This is only true if the local culture makes this association. My understanding is that Japan is like this to an extreme degree, to the point you get banned from bathhouses. The general association that a couple small tattoos have is nowhere near that strong in most places in NA, and even less so in most large cities.
Tattoos are expensive and painful to get and permanent
I'd argue that there's actually a positive correlation between the cost of a tattoo and the the quality of the character of the person in question. (As many "trashy" tattoos will be cheap flashes with no thought put into them, or done outside a regular shop on impulse with no thought for the future. Expensive tattoos are typically planned out with great care, discussed with a well-regarded artist beforehand, with the appropriate weight given to a permanent decision).
And painful? It's really not that bad (from my understanding, I don't actually have any myself). But lots of worthwhile things are painful in the moment.
They betray a significant deviation from my values (likes tattoos vs dislikes tattoos) and thus give me an "other" signifier for that person
This is just "I don't like them" again, and says more about you than them.
Again -> perfectly fine to judge someone for having prison-style, or face and neck tattoos, or having cheap offensive tattoos or way way too many. But the blanket statement is going to come off as rude because so many people have one or two tiny or hidden ones, that don't indicate anything significant about their character.
I myself have none, but my SO has a full sleeve, done with careful consideration and consultation with an artist. More are planned. My best friend has a quote from a classic novel hidden under his shirt. One of my siblings has a tiny symbol to commemorate a trip with friends hidden on the side of their foot. None of us are lower-class, we're all high-achieving in our lives, careers, and personal relationships.
the_Culture_is_great
12d ago
I'm not disagreeing that adoptions can go wrong, and horribly so.
I'm saying that the "ghetto boy" bit paired with the "invasive species" metaphor is implying that black people specifically are the problem.
I guess I just think you should really stay away from species-based talk when discussing human subgroups, it's too easyr to be dehumanizing.
My intuition is that the optimal incarnation rate is probably somewhere between Canada and the US. That seems likely even if you know nothing about the specifics given that Canada is on the low side and the US is on the high side.
It can be true that Canada should increase its rate, and the US should decrease.
More options
Context Copy link