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 -
[reposting from last week, now with the permanent URL]
For anyone interested, I did my first livestream where I show my face and everything with Counterpoints, a conservative/centrist in Florida who used to be a cop and is now an internet pundit (and WH40k enthusiast). We talk for about an hour and discussed our contrasting experience within the criminal justice system, domestic violence prosecution, drug policing, and very briefly get into race identitarianism.
Relatedly, Counterpoints made a video about the [history of political YouTube] (HE TOOK IT DOWN FOR SOME REASON) which I thought was very interesting look into a phenomenon I hadn't been exposed to much. It's curious to me why this ever became a thing, and why so many online pundits got their start in video game streaming. When Jesse Singal was interviewed by Destiny, they talked for an hour and a half through these tiny viewports, while unrelated Elden Ring gameplay footage played on center stage throughout.
Anyway, it was a fun experience with a format I had never tried before.
This is true, I don't disagree. But it's also a double-edged sword because the stigma itself makes it more dangerous (which in turn can further discourage use). I can't order medical-grade heroin from Amazon Prime, so the only avenue available is stuff that has been stepped on and laced with who knows what. I can't use heroin in any facility supervised by medical professionals, so the only avenue available is to find an out-of-the-way location (alley, park, stairwell, etc.) which significantly increases the risk of dying from overdose. Etc.
So it's very plausible that more people would try heroin if it was fully legalized. At the same time, it will be significantly safer to use. It's possible that the net effect will result in more harm overall, but I am skeptical because the harm from legalization would need to be so high that it overcomes the harm that we currently have from prohibition. The latter has quite the laundry list as it stands.
How so? Not saying you're wrong, but this statement does not seem to necessarily track my own intuition. Pure heroin is just as easy to get hooked on as the stepped-on stuff. Medical-supervision of use would be a far cry from how we treat just about any other recreational substance; you don't need a nurse on hand to take a drink of whisky, or smoke a joint (in the relevant jurisdictions where joints are legal). I don't think that's on the table even in the wild universes where legalization goes through. And the pure, high-quality stuff can easily lead to overdoses as inexperienced people who don't understand how to dose properly. etc.
The issue with stepped-on heroin is that it's often cut with fentanyl, because fentanyl is easier to smuggle/cheaper, but doesn't dilute your product's quality. However, [X] amount of heroin is a good time, [X] amount of fentanyl is death. And your back alley dealer isn't operating medical grade mixers. So while he is cutting that pound of heroin by 25% overall, your specific bag may be 90% heroin, it may be 90% Fentanyl. And there's currently only one way to find out, which is why even long time heroin junkies that know what they're doing have been ODing a lot in recent years. If you could order Amazon's Best Pick Heroin, you could be a lot more confident in the product.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know if I worded it in the best way. I'm not saying that pure heroin is necessarily "safer", but rather that the dangers are at least less unpredictable to the stepped on stuff. When people do drugs that are stigmatized, they tend to hide or go places where they're less likely to attract attention, especially from law enforcement. I can buy alcohol at the store or go to a bar if I wanted a drink, I wouldn't have any avenues similarly sanctified if I wanted heroin. So it was not totally precise for me to say "the stigma itself" makes it more dangerous, because it's more of a parallel track than a linear causation.
On the one hand, I think you're right that the illegitimate trade is less regular and more furtive than a regularized trade would be (though once cartels have power in a trade, I remain unconvinced that legalization alone is enough to shake established market norms participants).
On the other, I think your "harms of stigma" vs. "harms of legalization" framework is exactly correct. The product is dangerous no matter how it is used. So the question is, whether the lower, irregular consumption under a prohibitory regime is worse (for various definitions of "worse") than the broader, regularized consumption under a permissive regime. And of course the size of the usage delta between prohibitory and permissive regime is a major area of contention here.
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