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 -
Democrats let out actual leftist terrorists like Weather Underground and FALN Puerto Rican separatists (responsible for 130 bombings). Turnabout is fair play.
Er, what? Two wrongs make a right, according to you?
Two wrongs don't make a right, but they do sometimes cancel each other out.
More options
Context Copy link
No, I am questioning the "two wrongs" part.
More options
Context Copy link
"Yes, I know they keep firing on our position. But that doesn't make it right to shoot people. I'm taking a principled stance against using weapons on people."
Or even "I know they keep firing on your position. But from my position, well safe and far away, that doesn't make it right for you to shoot people."
"Think about how upset being shot at makes you. Isn't it hypocritical of you to want to shoot back?"
As an aside, I hate how hypocrisy is now the cardinal and only sin in certain discourse. Since, as the theory goes, all morality is subjective, it leaves one who swallows the subjective-pill unable to point out how someone else's culture, values, or religion are evil and wrong. However, it's always possible to point out hypocrisy since virtually everyone falls short of their professed values in some way or the other. It is the universal argument. "No I don't believe in your backwards, primitive, parochial morality but then again you don't perfectly live up to the virtues you profess so really neither do you nyah nyah nyah." But there are worse things than being a hypocrite, namely: not being a hypocrite because you have no virtues to fall short of. There are only two types of non-hypocritical people: saints and the amoral, and there are many more of the latter than the former.
Arguments over hypocrisy are the last stop before total values incoherence. Previously, we would have argued over the implementation of shared values, but those values are no longer shared in any meaningful sense. Having accepted that there is no meaningful overlap of shared values, we appeal to the meta of consistency. If consistency fails, there's not really anything left to talk about.
There's literally centuries - millennia actually - of discourse over morality and what it is and should be. But first you do need to accept that morality exists.
There's only nothing left to talk about if both sides believe values are merely subjective and that, therefore, no values can be more correct than any other in any absolute sense. Even totally incoherent contradictory values aren't wrong - after all, thinking that someone's beliefs shouldn't contradict themselves is itself just another merely subjective value judgment.
I observe a set of people who share my values, and a set of people who do not share my values.
When dealing with the set of people who share my values, appeal to those values we share is a viable method of conflict resolution; we agree on ends, and are only arguing about means.
When dealing with the set of people who do not share my values, I can't appeal to my values because they don't share them, and so such an appeal would be meaningless, and I usually have no interest in appealing to their values, because I don't share them and they don't generally support the argument I'm making.
Once I recognize that a set of people doesn't share my values, what is there to do? Even if I believe my values are objectively correct, I have no way of forcing this set of people to agree. Any further discussion depends on a retreat to subjectivity to even be possible. If I'm not willing to consider that my values might be wrong, why should I expect them to do so?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You'll have to unfilter him
thanks, approved the rest of the filtered posts too while I was at it.
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
Sometimes, yeah. We tacitly acknowledge this with all punitive justice - we may not be able to make a right, but the best we can do is visible punishment of transgressors.
Additionally tit-for-tat is a better game theoretical strategy than cooperating with a defectbot.
In any case, the situation can't be addressed with cliches, at least not adequately. The response like what @satanistgoblin is expressing above is largely about the complete intellectual and moral bankruptcy of people that have excused all manor of political terrorism in the past (including the recent past, when BLM rioters killed dozens and destroyed billions in property) suddenly deciding that a riot that got out of hand requires tracking down everyone present and charging them under novel interpretations of statute that had never previously occurred to anyone.
I don't know that visible punishment as its own end is why we have punitive justice. Most proponents will cite things like deterence, or prevention (i.e. keeping dangerous people in jail), or in more leftist societies rehabilitation. The point being the result: reduction of crime, a safer society. Punitive justice seems like an archaic tool that still has contemporary benefits, similar to old rules about the sabbath that gave people community, or old rules about what to avoid eating to prevent disease.
The punitive aspect is, in part, that we have that as a means available (familiar, common sensible, and traditional). But contemporary societies realized to varying degrees that punishing conditions don't help in themself. Hence why torture isn't allowed, or prison conditions aren't totally uncomfortable (in other countries at least).
As someone who isn't American, it's sad to see that American society is unable to come to a point of real discussion about what is better for the function of their country, and instead resorts to arguments about what the other side has done. It seems to me that both sides are unhappy with the justice system and how it can be abused to treat people unfairly. That seems to be a problem beyond either side, but it is highlighted when either side can cherry pick examples.
From an outside perspective, I am deeply concerned that Trump will do nothing to help the structural issues. But to be fair, I don't think the Democrats had any better chance.
The issue is that both sides do already have at least low-resolution ideas of what we can do to improve said function, we just can't agree on which ones to implement.
That may have been a problem in the past. I haven't seen good faith discussion between tribal lines in a hot minute. It seems to me that it is often less about disagreeing about the solution, and disagreeing about framing altogether, e.g. the left framing abortion as a women's rights and bodily autonomy issue, the right framing abortion as a religious and ethical issue. Part of this is political posturing (saying that murdering babies is fine isn't a popular move), but part of it, to me, is missing the fundamental reason for government and politics (what makes for a more successful/stable/flourishing/insert adjective society?)
In the abortion example, the cold calculation is something like looking at the impact on the economy, birth rates, education, and many creative ways of gaugibg the effect. Usually the answer to whether something is a good idea in hat sense is contextual and not an absolutist stance (compare a country with a popukation that is too large to support, versus one that cannot replenish its population).
This frame for abortion can only make sense from a pro-choice framework. The Pro-life framework obviously brooks no compromise. It'd be like asking for a pro/con breakdown on allowing violent nonconsensual rape and taking seriously the boons to the economy and fertility rate. This, and many problems just actually grounds out in values differences which you can't really do utility calculous on because you have different utility functions.
More options
Context Copy link
Aren't the majority of abortions in the USA to underclass women? Ye's claim there were more black babies aborted than born in NYC.
I've not heard an economic argument from the pro-abortion tribe.
I don't think I've heard one from either side, but that's the point. The moral ground for either side is imovable and never addresses the other point.
I respect that many place importance on the morality of policy and laws on both the left and right, and I think that deontological rules are an important boundary for unchecked utilitarian thinking (which can go off the rails). But from my perspective, utilitarian thinking is mostly absent these days, in favour of emotional arguments that do not take into consideration the full range practical issues. Everyone seems very concerned about how wrong the other guy is, but not so interested in looking at why both sides are dreadfully unhappy with things. This is exacerbated by hot button issues like trans people, who are a minority minority, when there are huge day-to-day economic changes in the past 10 years.
I wish the government was more concerned with being a transparent public service that deals with things the private market tends to bungle, rather than invested in tit for tat status quo or promoting an idealistic agenda. To me this seems worse in the USA than my country, but it is present here too. And I don't think one side is better than the other in that regard, when so many of the messages are "the other guy did it first". Hold politicians accountable to being productive rather than performing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As others have covered, I vigorously disagree. Others ends can be legitimate as well, but retribution is a good reason to do punitive justice. Retribution is a good and legitimate motivation and the inclination to suppress it is perverse. Mere restorative or preventative measures deny victims of crime their just outcome.
I guess we just disagree. In a hypothetical world where a caught criminal could instantly be turned into a productive, law abiding member of society without punishment, there is nothing but benefit in my view. (You can find ways to tweak that thought experiment in ways that make it closer to our messy reality, or make the result less clearcut; but as a over simplified thought experiment, it demonstrates how I feel very well).
To me, retribution seems like the heat that happens when you are trying to optimize for light.
Retribution is a way to discourage criminals from doing crime before they commit it, something that rehabilitation can't do (unless you have a way to do it to everyone preemptively).
There are mixed findings on punishment as a means of preventing crime, which matches my impression of most low level criminals (not a rational pro/con crowd) and understanding of why crime is committed (passion, opportunity). I don't think people commit crimes with the thought they will get caught and punished. Keeping criminals imprisoned seems to have a bigger effect on general crime (i.e. keeping them from doing it again because they are locked up).
I would guess the pre-emptive way to discourage crime is to make it so that crime doesn't pay. People are less likely to commit crimes when they have more to lose, can gauge the benefits and downsides and see the downsides are greater, or live comfortable and stable lives with loved ones in a safe community. Someone without a home, food, family or friends is way riskier than someone with any of those things.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Accepting the terms of the thought experiment, I would still want retributive punishment to match the crime. Even if you could absolutely assure me that a man that robbed my home could be turned into just a perfectly decent man and that no punishment would impact others, I'd still want him caned. He deserves the suffering for inflicting it on others and to deny his victims that penance is an injustice. So, yeah, that's probably not a reconcilable value difference.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There is one more benefit of punitive justice: satisfaction for the victim. If you suffer, or people you care about suffer, it is satisfying to see the perpetrator of suffering to suffer in return. It’s a restitution of sorts.
You don’t see this argument being made though, even though this is extremely obvious and natural to most people (you can find millions of examples on X of people, both on left and right, full of glee from people being punished by criminal system), because it is obviously invalid in the enlightened liberal framework under which the discussion is happening.
Retribution is even one of the textbook reasons for criminal punishment: deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retribution. (Sometimes restitution is included, sometimes treated separately)
More options
Context Copy link
I don't personally consider that a benefit. In fact, I think it is a flaw because it causes people to act in ways that are less utilitarian/net good. I think the feeling of retribution and satisfaction is the primary driver for justice in a small society/community and serves the purpose of banding people together. But i do not believe it is a good in itself, and it should be tempered by rationality to discern the best course of action.
Like other intense emotions, it acts as an indicator for a desired change (the crime should never occur again, for example). But it does not indicate the exact course of action that should happen for the greatest benefit, especially on a social level.
Yeah, that’s the enlightened liberal framework I was talking about. Most people (fortunately) do not subscribe to utilitarianism, but nonetheless this is the dominant framework for the discussion, along with some specific assumptions, like granting substantially similar value to utils received by the perpetrator and the victim.
Is it the dominant framework for the discussion? I don't think I have ever spoken to someone about utilitarianism outside of rationalist ajacent circles.
To me the important question for government is, how do we get all of society's moving parts to work well together? How do we build a stable society for the future? It is, for better or worse, not a very warm approach (that's just how I tend to approach problems in general though). I acknowledge the human need to feel better about wrongs, but I think it can do more harm than good in a society of many. I also think preventing future crime is more important than punishment; it is preventable and crimes that have already happened are not. There is little evidence to show that punishment acts as a deterent for crime in our current society.
The other issue with something like retributive justice is that everyone's sense of what constitutes proper retribution is different. Retribution is not just a concern of conservative justice, it is the foundation for a lot of social justice movements. I take the same stance there. If the solution creates a bigger problem, it is not a solution (obviously this is a bit of a tautology). Or a step further: if retribution is a solution but there is a solution with better outcomes that does not involve retribution, the latter is better.
I don't think the desire for retribution isn't an important factor, just that retribution in itself isn't something to maximize as a value for me. I think the greatest pitfall of retribution in a large society (versus a small one, where it makes a lot more sense) is that the moving parts are no longer in sync. You can see this with public shamings that target relatively innocent people with great impunity and consequence. Or when two groups take opposing sides, and the desire for retribution is an infinite push back and forth.
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
Sometimes - for example, if someone hits you you can hit back and it counts as self defense.
It's not even a wrong because J6ers have been tortured with solitary confinement, charged using obscure civil war laws etc. Dems had their fun for 4 years, enough.
"etc" here including charging protestors with Sarbanes-Oxley violations, a tactic which the courts ultimately limited but refused to strike down entirely.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why not? I'd normally say that it's wrong for Ukrainians to launch rockets into Russian territory, but two wrongs do indeed make a right in some cases.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link