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 -
I have previously discussed why I think the anti-death penalty stance is not just incorrect, but evil. This morning, I have received news that what I consider the most pro-crime administration of my lifetime has done something that I thought was unthinkable, and has commuted the death penalty sentences of 37 of the 40 federal death row inmates:
I am, as they say, triggered. For an administration filled with pro-crime sentiments and excuse-making for evil people, this probably tops the charts. I am disgusted by Biden's handlers. Here's the list of federal death row inmates. Absolutely none of the usual reasons for opposing the death penalty even begin to make sense for these guys. People worry about sentencing someone that's wrong accused to death - did they get it wrong in these examples?
They just somehow accidentally tabbed the wrong guy for murdering a prison guard? Really could have been anyone? Or perhaps you're concerned that it should only be reserved for the worst people, which is why Roof has to go. OK:
I'd love to hear the explanation for the parents of that preteen girl why their child's life wasn't every bit as sacred as the victims of Bowers and Roof. Why does he deserve a commutation? Perhaps it's because she was just an individual, so her life doesn't really deserve to be repaid with retributive justice, in contrast to Roof's victims. On an intuitive level, almost everyone knows that Dylann Roof deserves to die and that the only miscarriage of justice will be that it takes decades of fighting with demonic attorneys to get it done. Somehow, a bunch of otherwise decent people have convinced themselves that while Roof is sufficiently evil that he just deserves to die, there are probably a bunch of other death row inmates that don't. I believe this is because they're just not aware of the facts of those cases. Let's look at one of the commuted sentences:
How many people, knowing that information, would say that it's important for the President to spare these guys from execution?
There is no coalition that I have more sincere contempt for than people that spend their lives trying to avoid the execution of men like Kadamovas. There are so many issues where I grant a difference in preferences, values, evaluations of policies, or genuine mistakes. On this one, I am just sincerely angry at everyone that disagrees with me. The Biden administration has done so many things that I disagree with, but most of them still fall into that category of normal political disagreements. Denying the victims of these crimes the only justice that could have been done is evil.
I don't understand the point of this post, apart from venting about your outgroup. Sure, the omissions from the commutation list are notable for being obviously due to consideration for CW optics, but is there no explanation you can think of for being against the death penalty that is not being "pro-crime" or thinking that there is a possibility of punishing the wrong person? This is not the first time this topic has been discussed on this forum, or elsewhere, but you add no new arguments, dismiss the wealth of existing arguments for and against (seemingly out of conviction that tapping the "evil" sign about those you want to see executed should be all the argument one needs?), and do little to even encourage others to have a healthy discussion, by declaring your contempt and anger for those who disagree with you and throwing around colourful invectives like "demonic".
Biden was not acting "against the death penalty". He didn't commute the sentence of every person on death row, which that would imply. He was selective.
How is that not acting against?
He's not acting based on moral opposition to the death penalty.
Less-than-maximum opposition is still opposition, though. Compare abortion clinic picketers, or Israel boycotts.
It's like being about to commute someone's sentence, and being told "I'll give you this cheeseburger if you don't". If he took the cheeseburger and accordingly didn't commute the sentence, it's obvious that the initial decision to commute the sentence wasn't based on any strong principle.
"Because people would get upset about it" is an extremely weak reason to change his mind if he really did it out of moral opposition to the death penalty, weak enough that I'd question how significant that opposition was. (For that matter, I doubt more people would get upset about it than did over pardoning Hunter. And if they got mad, so what? He's out of politics; they can't hurt him.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That doesn't follow either. At best you can say he is not ONLY acting based on moral opposition to the death penalty.
Indeed as far as I know he was talked out of commuting all of them as a compromise. So while he is acting on moral opposition to the death penalty he is letting that be partially compromised by politics. That perhaps loses him some points for following his principles no matter what, but does not change that the act is based upon moral opposition to the death penalty in the first place. As pointed some of those commuted were neo-nazis. Not exactly his political allies.
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