the_Culture_is_great

the_Culture_is_great 1yr 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).

-4

Context

the_Culture_is_great 1yr 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).

Context

the_Culture_is_great 1yr 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".

Context

the_Culture_is_great 1yr 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.

Context

the_Culture_is_great 1yr 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).

-3

Context

the_Culture_is_great 1yr 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.)

Context

the_Culture_is_great 1yr 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

Context

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_incarceration_rate_with_other_countries

the_Culture_is_great 1yr ago

I don't think the issue can be boiled down to "just keep more people in jail longer".

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.

-2

Context

the_Culture_is_great 1yr 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.

Context

the_Culture_is_great 1yr 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!

Context

the_Culture_is_great 1yr 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.

Context

the_Culture_is_great 1yr 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

Context

the_Culture_is_great 1yr 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".

Context

the_Culture_is_great 1yr 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.

Context

the_Culture_is_great 1yr 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."

Context

the_Culture_is_great 1yr ago · Edited 1yr ago

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.

Context

the_Culture_is_great 1yr 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.

Context

the_Culture_is_great 1yr 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.

Context

the_Culture_is_great 1yr ago

Maybe a bit pedantic, but your examples are also common idioms. The "invasive species" thing isn't, so I wanted why I felt it had such a strong negative implication.

But also if the comment implied that every black person in group of whites is a "wolf in sheep's clothing" I'd have the same issue. Those are both also very negative idioms to apply to people.

I think the "ghetto boy, invasive species" bits change the message from "be careful with adoption because you might get a bad seed" (the individual you might adopt could be bad and there's nothing you can do) to "don't adopt a black kid, they're all bad, and they're ruining everything".

-4

Context

the_Culture_is_great 1yr ago · Edited 1yr ago

I'm not going to disagree that black people as a group share common adaptations for warm climates, that's obviously true, and not the morally wrong part of the metaphor.

the fact that there are some nice invasive species doesn't change the fact that the typical attitude towards them in general is still very, very negative.

And finally any implication that subgroups of people are different species i.e. not human is also morally wrong, especially just dropped into an unrelated conversation (the original comment made no mention of race).

Context

the_Culture_is_great 1yr ago

Black people are not a seperate species.

Sure make an argument about "we should stop subsidizing black people" (I especially agree with "don't subsidize people based on race specifically"). But don't do it in a dehumanizing way by calling them a seperate species.

-5

Context