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 -
Just be tough and Nayib Bukele
In a recent article and highlights post, Scott Alexander argued against the narrative that being tougher on a difficult social problem like homelessness was an effective way to solve them, suggesting that the "tough" argument relied on a simplistic view of the problem and failed to address the intricacies that were necessary to actually make a tough approach work.
In responses on the post and in discussion here, some toughness proponents argued that a sufficiently tough approach, i.e. abandoning due process and many civil liberties, could overcome the different barriers to solving homelessness, but western societies are simply unable to proceed with such a radical policy.
One of the strongest points of evidence in favour of "radical toughness" is El Salvador. Under Nayib Bukele, the country has drastically reversed decades of gang violence and murder by pursuing an extremely harsh approach to imprisonment, placing around 2% of the population in jail in an attempt to crush the gangs. The results speak for themselves, with El Salvador now having a lower murder rate than Canada and Bukele becoming one of the most popular politicians in the world. Despite accusations of authoritarian behaviour, there is little doubt that Bukele would sweep any open and honest election.
An article in the American Affairs Journal casts doubt on one of the tenets of the Bukele approach: that mass imprisonment has not had nearly as dramatic effect as simple negotiation with gangs for reductions in violence. As such, Latin American nations which have tried to emulate Bukele have not been able to replicate the success, suggesting that "just be radically tough" might not be the panacea that Western proponents hope for.
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2024/05/the-bukele-model-and-the-future-of-el-salvador/
The success of Bukele:
Initial attempts to rein in violence through tough on crime approaches:
Bukele's secret weapon:
Issues with long-term success:
The main argument of the article:
Why did El Salvador's tough on crime policies succeed?
The attempts of other nations:
On the weakness of the gangs:
Conclusion:
The article also delves into the wider successes and failures of Bukele for the economy, but I assume the approaches to criminality will be most interesting to readers here.
I can also recommend Matt Lakeman’s excellent post on Bukele and El Salvador for those wanting a deep dive into the issue.
I like Scott, but Matt Lakeman makes Scott Alexander look like Peter Zeihan! Or something. Pick whoever you think is funniest for the third name.
I take it from this that Peter Zeihan isn't particularly well thought of around here?
idk. pick whoever you want for the third person, like I said
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link