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.
Why is this a stronger argument against the death penalty than it is against life imprisonment? Like, I'd rather be in prison for life than die, but it's a close thing, both are about as bad relative to continuing to live my life. Most of the harm is done by life in prison. There is possibility of exoneration for the wrongly convicted, but in practice this only happens in <10% of cases.
The argument is that if imprisonment for life costs the government money, they look for alternatives (and if that weren't true, activists wouldn't attempt to make the death penalty so expensive - so it's not a completely out there theory, at least).
Yes, there are people who we probably both agree should never be free again. I'd say in an ideal world, we should be able to remove them from our society. However, I don't think that the way our governments have evolved have led to them being good stewards of this power. A more local government system would probably work better - where the person deciding knows the person being punished. Are they an incorrigible bastard, or someone down on their luck? The blind eye of justice can't be trusted to make that decision, especially with politics involved.
I honestly am kind of against life imprisonment as well - I think a lot of people underestimate how time trades off against punishment. I feel like the visceral nature of the punishment needs to remain to remind people that the punishment needs to be deserved. One problem I see happen a lot with punishments is the "hate crime" clause - where everyone tries to get their crime treated as super duper evil so the perpetrators need to receive longer sentences. I honestly think that punishments should be bloody and horrible to separate out the "punishment" part of justice from the "prevention" part, so that jail exists solely to keep people from hurting others (and can be sentenced independent to the punishment).
Why do you think this would be better? Many local jurisdictions have corrupt or malicious cops, judges, etc, and every month or two there's a story about how the sheriff and judge of Corn Subsidy, KY had an agreement to put innocent people in jail for kickbacks from the jail or something. A large government lets you have checks against that, so the national media can investigate that and feds or state police or something can deal with it.
Actually, I think you're just wrong there - most people are judged by local judges, and by ... local juries of their peers. And they are given a lot of discretion on sentencing, which they are intended to and do use to give bastards more and down on their luck less time.
I agree that time poorly trades off against punishment, and think some innovation in punishment methods might be good, although I think it's not as easy as just bringing back old brutal punishments - I think most of them often cause permanent damage when done at the level necessary to substitute for months or more in prison.
If it helps, remember that I live in Canada - I tend to come to these things from that perspective. We've had a rash of judges appointed by our unpopular liberal government who have been letting criminals out who should definitely not be free (it's not uncommon to see people who have 50+ arrests be brought in for going on a stabbing spree, for example). The disadvantage to a large government is that when it gets corrupted, there is no way to push back on it - it doesn't matter that the LPC may not win any seats in western Canada, we're still governed by their choices.
These judges are utterly immune to public perception - short of performing some fedposting activities, there is no consequence to their actions. One of the hopes of making these things extremely local would be to either enforce consequences on the judges, or to allow people to flee jurisdictions in which the judges have proven to not be acting in the best interest in their community.
Ideally, I'd like to see something more like Scott's archipelago.
With regards to physical punishments - the purpose of that is actually more to get people to actually treat the punishment and the restraining parts of justice differently - I could honestly see an argument that most crimes don't receive any physical punishments at all. I think right now the problem with it is that putting someone in jail is both a way to punish them, and to prevent them from offending again. When you have people like the above (50+ arrests), it makes sense to treat them as someone who is at high risk of reoffending, even if none of their original crimes warrants that harsh of a punishment.
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