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 guess I'll make an argument against the death penalty, as I haven't heard anyone make this argument yet in this thread.
The biggest reason I personally can see to oppose the death penalty is that no government can be trusted with life or death powers over its citizens, as every government serves only its own interests, as opposed to the interests of its peoples (for what it's worth, this also means I am opposed to eugenics, MAID, and similar programs). Given that around 50% of the time, the government is run entirely by people I would consider to have morally abhorrent views (while the majority of the remaining time, it seems to be run by people who are solely interested in enriching themselves), I'd rather not have someone deciding that posting wrongthink is worthy of death, while sexual assault of a child warrants a second chance, all because of who did it.
I need you to unpack the MAID opinion more please, I find opposition to it fascinating and profoundly frustrating.
Because you don't trust the government, you think that if I'm diagnosed with incurable and fatal cancer, I have to suffer a prolonged and painful death because you don't trust the government? If you don't trust the government, you don't ever have to consent to MAID, even if an idiot who works for the government suggests it to you as an option.
The fact that anti MAID people think restricting the freedom of other people to choose has never made sense to me.
I strongly recommend reading this article about the end of life care that doctors receive, versus the general population: https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2013/03/how-doctors-die/
Certainly, happy to.
My belief is that once MAID becomes an option, the government immediately and irrevocably takes the approach of funneling all its resources towards MAID-ing people, as opposed to resolving the underlying issues behind the issue (as it is almost always the cheaper option).
For example, we have had numerous scandals in Canada where the government has offered MAID as a response to:
The first fairly clearly falls under the domain of the government; the third falls under the government's responsibility, as they take roughly $8000 CAD per person in taxes to make such a garbage system. The second is less obvious, and I would agree the connection is tenuous; however, I'm fairly certain that the reason people feel so isolated and atomized is due to the cost of living crisis, which leads to a situation where most people are working huge hours and are just too exhausted to try to meet people after a long day.
The government of Canada has made statements that indicate that they want to expand MAID to people suffering from mental illness; they have also made statements that indicate that they want to expand the eligibility of MAID to people suffering from mental illnesses that do not permit consent (for example, schizophrenia or alzheimers). This strikes me as a worrying combination.
Note that I don't have any complaints about someone who is in indescribable pain choosing to end their own life; I just don't believe that the government should have any say in permitting it or not. Honestly, if I were to put a safeguard on it, I'd say that anyone who claims MAID can choose any public minister who receives it simultaneously to them (I realize the chances of this being implemented is less than 0; I just don't want a situation where the government is encouraged or permitted to destroy its own citizens). I'd be worried that the government would inflict circumstances on individuals who it should be supporting in an attempt to remove them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link