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 -
Scoundrels should be oppressed. The fact that honest people can be falsely portrayed as scoundrels, and the necessary mechanisms of justice turned unjustly against them, does not change this reality. Auto-immune disorders can't be resolved by simply switching off the immune system.
"Scoundrels should be oppressed" is fine in a vacuum. History has indicated that when governments begin oppressing scoundrels, they rarely stop there - they keep pushing at the boundaries of what constitutes a scoundrel until non-scoundrels are included.
I'm not claiming that Visa/Mastercard are "like the Nazis" but the principle is the same.
My understanding of history argues otherwise. Do you have some examples in mind? When you say that the boundary of "scoundrel" expands to include non-scoundrels... well, pretty clearly if they're accusing people of being scoundrels, they think they are scoundrels, no? How do you distinguish between the definition of scoundrel being too narrow, and expanding to match reality, versus the definition being perfect, and growing too broad?
Further, if it does expand too far... what then? What's to stop people from simply assessing that it's gone too far, correcting, and dialing it back to the appropriate level?
And if they don't dial it back to what you consider an appropriate level, what happens if their society simply operates in that fashion indefinitely? Is your claim that, if the borders expand too large, something catastrophic happens? If nothing catastrophic happens, is your theory disproven?
Kohlberg stage III/IV morality, which says "that which gets you in trouble is bad", makes it hard to abolish rules against things; "it's illegal, so it's immoral, so it should stay illegal". This is a ratchet effect, which does justify caution.
To give a simple (if petty) example, webforum rules lists almost always get longer over time.
The ratchet can be pushed back, but it's not easy. Usually (but not always) involves some sort of Year Zero, whether that be a revolution, a counterculture, or more pettily and virtually a breakaway webforum redrawing its rules from scratch.
More options
Context Copy link
The USA PATRIOT Act was passed and implemented with the ostensible goal of combatting a group most of us would consider "scoundrels" by any reasonable definition: terrorists, especially Islamist extremists. Almost immediately, it was used as a tool for oppressing any group the federal government didn't like the look of, such as people operating Stargate SG-1 fan websites, people suspected of having committed non-terrorist crimes (without being formally indicted or being served a search warrant), legal permanent residents who the Attorney General suspects may cause a terrorist act and so on.
There are people that most reasonable people would consider scoundrels (murderers, rapists, drug dealers). The government is afforded various powers to combat these scoundrels. But there will always be a natural temptation for the government to abuse this privilege by using it against people the government doesn't like, but that no reasonable person would consider scoundrels (anti-war activists, environmentalists, homosexuals, directors of low-budget horror films and so on).
An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. Better that ten guilty men escape than one innocent man hang.
Not necessarily. To use my earlier example of the USA PATRIOT Act, I don't think anything "catastrophic" has happened as a result of that piece of legislation - it hasn't led to a genocide, or destabilised the US, or anything of that magnitude. But I think it's fair to say that numerous people have had their civil liberties unfairly infringed upon - or indeed, their lives ruined - as a result of this legislation and how it was (ab)used, and I think that's bad.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Scoundrels should have justice coming to them, for the bad things they actually do, no more, no less. Doing more than that, because they're bad people who deserve being treated badly, is not justice, and it's not what the justice system is supposed do to, and it can get out of control quickly. That's not autoimmune disorder, that's leukemia.
As long as you're keeping to justice, punishing scoundrels for scoundreling, not for existing, honest people have little to fear. Once you cut down the law to get at scoundrels who "hide behind it" by abiding it, it doesn't protect honest people anymore either.
Another issue is that scoundrel can mean bad people, but it also can mean icky people. Lolicons are the latter.
You appear to be approaching the question from a context of laws and other highly legible systems of formal rules. If I'm understanding you correctly, the idea would be that there's a clear separation between the legal rules and the justice system, and the various sorts of informal social consequences for lesser transgressions, with the idea being that the latter are perhaps less important and can more or less be ignored. If someone's not breaking the law, they should be left alone to do as they please, and we should in fact maintain a broad commons of unpoliced social space where people, generally, mind their own business and live and let live.
The problem, as I see it, is that people can do harmful and selfish things that make life a lot worse for everyone around them, and it's not possible to actually codify law against all those things. There's always going to be leaks, cracks, failures of encoding or enforcement. Also, there's a lot of social interactions that the law is simply too slow and regimented to meaningfully police. I observe that social consequences, even very serious social consequences that ruin or even end lives, have more or less always been part of our social structure. My guess is they always will be.
Society needs cohesion to function. broad commons of unpoliced social space where people, generally, mind their own business and live and let live was tried. It collapsed very quickly, and it is not obvious that it can or should be rebuilt. Live-and-let-live failed because it allowed a variety of social harms to spread unchecked, until people found the situation intollerable and began throwing their weight behind various forms of crackdown. And this is the pattern: your laws and social systems have to actually keep things running smoothly, or people will simply tear them out and replace them wholesale.
It is not obvious to me that this is actually true. I know that libertarians and Enlightenment idealists of the first water think it's true, and even desperately want it to be true, but many of the arguments they present seem to me to cash out in various forms of just-world fallacy. Censoring people doesn't seem to lead to you getting censored in any sort of causal fashion. Riding roughshod over the law to secure necessary results doesn't actually force woeful outcomes. Sticking it to the outgroup doesn't by any means result in someone else getting to stick it to you, thus restoring the balance. The Soviets broke every rule, and simply won, killed everyone who got in their way, ruled half the world for the better part of a century, and then more or less quietly died off. There was not and will not be any triumphant counter-revolution that does to them or their posterity what they did to others. Lincoln cut down a variety of laws, because the situation seemed to demand it... and his side won, and imposed their will on the losers, and there was no consequence of any significance that resulted.
It's very comforting to imagine that those who exercise power receive strict karma for the way they use it... but this does not appear to be the case. If you use power benevolently but ineffectually, others can take power away from you, and how they use it has nothing to do with how you used it.
What protects honest people is a cohesive society of other honest people who share their values and their understanding of who is and is not a scoundrel, and are willing and able to punish defectors appropriately. Lacking that, all the laws in the world will not save them.
The distinction does not seem sustainable at our present social scale.
I don't think you understood me correctly, I made no such distinction.
My point applies equally to informal social punishment: You should punish bad actions, not "bad people". At its basis, that's an ethical principle. No one deserves punishment for existing.
There seems to be another misunderstanding here. By "honest people" I'm not referring to the people who want to oppress scoundrels, in fact I believe these people are very often not honest. I'm thinking people who are minding their own business, innocent people.
My point is not that oppression is shortsighted due to risk of backfiring, but ethically fraught due to risk of hurting innocent people (as well as on its own merits in a vacuum). And it does seem obviously, trivially true that if you cut down the law (or non-law principle), it can't protect people anymore.
That said, the risk of backfiring is higher than you believe. Purity spirals, the revolution eating its own children. You talk about the soviets, but "the soviets" includes many people who did not in fact win in the end. Trotsky lost the power struggle with Stalin, and suddenly Trotskyists were considered scoundrel. Yezhov led the great purge and fell to it himself. Not everyone gets to be Stalin, so even the person who doesn't care about hurting innocents might consider self-interest.
You can't sustain an understanding of who is scoundrel. As you say yourself:
The issue is that if you go after bad people and aren't fair to them, it becomes hard for supposed scoundrel to defend themselves.
This also means dishonest people gain power, because they can falsely accuse honest people of being scoundrel. The solution is to go after bad actions, and fairly, so the accused gets a chance to correct potential mistakes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And thus, we get back to the age-old question: who determines the scoundrels? What if the Determinator-Of-Scoundrels is himself secretly a scoundrel seeking to shift the definition of "scoundrel" and oppress his enemies?
We do, collectively. If "we" has broken down, that itself is a problem that cannot be sidestepped, papered over, or worked around through clever systems design, and all these other problems emerge as a consequence.
There is no substitute for a foundational level of values coherence. Society inevitably breaks down in its absence. If you have such values coherence, defining and suppressing "scoundrels" is a solvable propblem. If you do not, it is not, and your society self-destructs.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link