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 -
This is what leaves me conflicted on the matter of felony disenfranchisement, really.
On principle, I'm against it, because I see the potential for it to be abused. "Quick, in this moment while we have control of the legislature and a friendly judiciary, let us render felonious some behavior that is characteristic of the other tribe so they can never vote again!" Now, of course, that's really unlikely to happen in that way, and if that ever becomes possible, surely we have bigger problems, but I still don't like leaving doors open to tyranny.
But. As you point out, it's not as though the current population of disenfranchised felons has a major number of otherwise-innocents who are just being persecuted in this way; instead, if your experience is generalizable, "almost all" have executed uncontestedly bad judgment, and if ever it is possible for somebody to have forfeited the power to vote, it's not like our current system is wildly missing the mark.
Now, the principle is still probably the deciding factor to me, but I cannot pretend that the short- or medium-term effects of abiding by it would be good. But hey, nothing says life cannot dish out no-win scenarios.
While I'm very sympathetic to this view, recent Red/Blue tribal warring has begun to convince me that there's really no legal safeguard, check, or balance you can implement that can prevent abuse of one tribe by another if there's sufficient tribal hatred and insufficient faith in our system of laws and government. It might stall the abuse for a time, but that time is probably a lot shorter than I previously imagined. And so any potential benefits of banning felons from voting ought not to be weighed against the potential for that ban to be used as a political weapon. Because in an ugly tribal conflict almost anything can and will be used as a political weapon.
More options
Context Copy link
There's a way to steelman the opposing view. A lot of the distinction between felony and misdemeanor seems arbitrary to me and the best example is DUI. I think driving drunk evinces horrifically bad judgment, especially if you do it multiple times, but in almost every state you have to get caught drunk driving at least 4 times within a given time period before it can count as a felony. The jail penalties ramp up, as do the collateral consequences (losing driver's licence, etc), but it's notable how reluctant state legislatures are in just declaring DUIs to be a felony. I think the reason why is because DUIs are by far the most "intersectional" of crimes in that almost any slice of the population is liable to trip up and get one. Because of that, they keep the misdemeanor gloves on.
There are also a bunch of edge cases. I once had a guy get charged with burglary (felony) because he stole one can of red bull from a walmart. Normally that would just be misdemeanor shoplifting, but it got upgraded to burglary because he already had a trespass order against him (burglary = intent to commit a crime + entering without permission, prosecutor dropped the charges because prosecuting a felony over $3 was not worth it to anyone). Similarly, I had a client who pawned off jewelry given to her by her boyfriend. Months later, boyfriends beats the shit out of my client and she reports it to the police. Literally the same day, the boyfriend's mom files a police report claiming that the jewelry my client pawned off was stolen. The value was something like $70, which assuming the mom wasn't lying would be just petty theft, but because my client pawned it she got hit by trafficking stolen property felony. [fyi I got her charges dropped once I showed the prosecutor the timing indicated the mom's police report was retaliatory]
Another thing to consider is how nominally neutral laws can still be enforced in a biased and targeted manner. The difference in jail time between a misdemeanor and a low-level felony for a first time offender is almost non-existent. But the collateral consequences of a felony conviction are severe. People lose gun rights and voting rights, and in some places they're also categorically prohibited from pursuing entire professions and, less formally, makes it difficult to find housing and employment. Felony convictions are a modern day legal vehicle used to stuff a bunch of collateral punishments on people. If you don't like someone, just find a way to peg them with a felony and you've virtually guaranteed their pariah status for life on a whole host of issues, not just voting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link