site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  3yr ago (text post)   34274 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 31, 2022

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.

24
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

First, you're mostly just going to catch the stupidest criminals this way. The smarter criminals will be able to evade capture for much longer. So we're only catching people who would have eventually been caught, anyways.

I've got a theory, entirely without data, mind, that the 'smarter criminals' are by and large not committing any sort of easily-detectable property crimes or violent crimes and thus aren't really contributing to the scary 'crime rate' in any significant way.

Because in the economic environment of the past 5+ years it with such low unemployment it becomes absurdly easy to get a legitimate job that pays decently, and there are all sorts of remote jobs, gigs, and other weird new ways to make money without being at risk of violence, a 'smart' person has less reason to do petty or violent crime.

Why would someone who is smart enough to evade LEO detection for years on end bother with a criminal enterprise at all unless it was extremely lucrative and, perhaps, didn't carry a massive jail sentence on the other end? Why put themselves into a position where exposure to extreme violence is a daily risk?

With the slight caveat:

The particularly bright minds that still have an knack for criminality will probably turn towards stuff like hacking/identity theft, ransomware, or just running crypto scams. So there's still a definite impact from these types of crimes, and these won't be detected by Terry stops.

TL;DR: the ability to detect stupid criminals is still useful if stupid criminals are the most likely to do violent crimes with visible social impact.

There are probably fewer 'smart' criminals in absolute terms because there are just so many avenues for smart people to make money with less risk right now. They're probably engaging in white-collar criminality if anything.

Why would someone who is smart enough to evade LEO detection for years on end bother with a criminal enterprise at all unless it was extremely lucrative and, perhaps, didn't carry a massive jail sentence on the other end

Some people are smart but dumb in some specific ways, some people just like committing crime, idk, it clearly happens. The smartest violent-crime-adjacent criminals are probably doing things like international drug trade logistics as opposed to smashing windows, and there's tens of thousands of smart people who are 'criminals' in that they're running scams or doing white collar crime, which often pays better for less risk.

I think this usually comes down to having poor impulse control.

I can absolutely think of many 'book-smart' types who have hard time holding their life together because they have difficulty restraining themselves from impulsive financial, romantic, or indeed crime-related actions.

"Smart" criminals, to the extent they exist, are probably in charge of drug gangs. Chicago's drug gangs, for example, were notorious for recruiting the few local kids who got into college to be future leaders. These people are likely making much more money than they easily could going straight.

According to Freakonomics, these kind of people are very careful about being arrested (e.g. not carrying drugs, guns, or excess cash), but also have an incentive to reduce violence since it's bad for business.

Of course, the actual answer to most crime related to these gangs is to decriminalize drugs and gambling and help addicts get clean.

There are probably fewer 'smart' criminals in absolute terms because there are just so many avenues for smart people to make money with less risk right now.

It's not like people who work at McDonald's are that much smarter than criminals. I think even average or low-IQ criminals rationalize that crime pays better compared to a low-skilled 9-5 job. A shoplifting gang can easily steal $1000s of dollars of merch/day, and criminal proceeds are untaxed.

and criminal proceeds are untaxed.

Well the IRS absolutely requires them to be reported, and will absolutely prosecute unreported income from criminal activity.

It's not like people who work at McDonald's are that much smarter than criminals. I think even average or low-IQ criminals rationalize that crime pays better compared to a low-skilled 9-5 job.

This seems beside the point. A person who is smart enough to avoid being nabbed by police for an extended period probably has better prospects than merely McDonalds.

Poor, relatively dumb people might be enticed to a life of crime if they think it shortcuts to riches, but I doubt that a smarter person would be without some other serious motivation.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats