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 -
Not sure if this has been discussed elsewhere and I missed it, but Scott recently wrote an essay on prison and crime. I did not love the essay, it seemed very similar to his homelessness essay, where he presents an adversarial system where people have worked very hard to make it expensive/difficult for our society to do something, then he throws up his hands and says given the cost benefit analyses (at the current, inflated prices) it is impossible to do the solution that really sounds like it would work. So I guess we need to do something else (that I just happen to like more).
At least, that is what it felt like to me. I actually wanted to focus on something else though. In the essay he reviews three meta-analyses of the situation, and presents their biases. While it goes unstated (or I missed it), the impression I got was that he was also supposed to be a 'neutral' voice, just looking at the data. However, he got in a bit of an X spat with Cremieux over one aspect of the essay, and in the back and the forth, he said the following,
Which is interesting, because it is bringing in a component that goes totally unanalyzed in the original essay, and yet seems profoundly important to his moral and ethical understanding of the question. Am I reading this wrong, or does Scott think that putting people in prison is the moral equivalent of torturing children?
In the original essay he did drop something that sounded weird to me, but I mostly overlooked it on my first reading,
Which seems to present the modal criminal receiving a lengthy prison sentence as a married father of 2.5 children with a stable career in the tech industry who one day randomly tripped and fell into a ten year felony conviction. Not only does it seem wildly at odds with reality, it also seems at odds with the quote above, where he seems to be saying that the average prisoner is basically retarded.
Is he just saying whatever he thinks will be most convincing depending on the context to arrive at the conclusion he has already decided is morally correct?
I do not read ACX that frequently any more, but this and the homelessness essay, both feel like pieces that 2014 Scott would have torn apart, whither Tartaria indeed.
It is my impression that the average progressive thinks this same way, just without the IQ obsession. Whether it is nature or nurture, either way it is not the criminal or homeless man's fault, he is simply a victim of his circumstances. This then leads to some bizarre conclusion that we are morally obligated to suffer their depredations as penance for being a functional part of the society that inflicts this life upon them.
Perhaps we don't need to make them suffer, but I don't understand how this doesn't lead to the conclusion that these people should be locked away for life in a minimally-cruel prison, just for the sake of keeping them away from the rest of us.
I mean it quite literally isn’t their fault. We still shouldn’t have to suffer the consequences of their bad behavior, although I will grant Scott’s point that prison is a sufficiently expensive and inhumane way to solve the problem that at least looking for other solutions is very worthwhile.
This is one of those views which are so absurd that only very learned men could possibly adopt them.
After all, even a dog can be trained.
Heinlein was directly on point:
Note that training dogs with only rewards and no punishments is possible, and is indeed the standard approach in a number of dog sports including the one I am most familiar with (agility). The trainers of serious competitive sheepdogs say that a combination of rewards and punishments is needed in their discipline, and I respect their expertise. But that is the very highest level of dog training, alongside police and military working dogs - and there is an ongoing dispute within the police/military working dog community about whether sufficiently skilled trainers get better performance with or without punishment.
The approach Heinlein suggests to housetraining puppies (or toilet-training toddlers, for that matter) does not work and creates traumatised dogs. You housetrain puppies by appropriately directing their natural instinct not to foul their own dens. A smart dog practically housetrains themselves.
So Heinlein wasn't on point - either he was an idiot or his character was. (Note that Heinlein was a libertarian, so we can be reasonably certain that he did not endorse the decidedly non-libertarian Terran Federation as correct about everything).
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
More options
Context Copy link