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 -
if you start with a strawman (really, the people you reference especially want no prosecution of brazen murderers?), and then assume that people only value policies for instrumental reasons, it is no wonder you are perplexed.
But, people are not only motivated instrumentally, and in fact there might well be a reasonable argument that the status quo re border policies and re criminal justice are wrong or suboptimal. When CA law allows 70+-year sentences for gang-related murders using guns, it does not seem THAT incomprehensible that someone might vote for a DA like Boudin so that those murders get "only" 25 years instead. And, maybe those people know more about the status quo than you do, and you might be open to the idea that, if you knew what they did, you might think somewhat similarly to them.
While the article omits the reason, the man order to live 70 years behind bars, was on parole at the time of the murder. But perhaps being on parole while commiting a crime shouldn't extend ones sentence, but in that case I don't see why it should exist at all.
As it happens, that did not factor in the sentence. Though of course he also has his parole revoked and has to serve that sentence as well. Such sentences are quite common in CA
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link