site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 5, 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.

105
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A twitter thread about a paper on policing: https://twitter.com/jnixy/status/1559568512485470209

The paper itself: https://t.co/sy6LHNMpph

Key points

  1. The US doesn't have that many police officers given its level of serious crime (homicide), but it does have a lot of prisoners.

  2. The US is unusually punitive for suspects who are arrested, but also unusually bad at arresting anyone.

Their main recommendation is to trade off more certainty of punishment against less severity. This is an idea with a good deal of support in criminology (e.g. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf claims this, and it is consistent with what I learned when I studied the subject; https://www.jstor.org/stable/41638882 claims the opposite, but agrees this is contradictory to most of the literature). In particular, we could spend less money on incarceration and more on police officers. Interestingly, despite the suggestion to hire a lot more police, the paper takes a progressive stance ("The burdens of the status quo... fall more disproportionately on Black people and the poor, and especially the Black poor, than do the benefits.")

See also, previous discussion about more/better police. (This was mid-2020, when the issue was particularly salient.) Another thing that came up was Jill Leovy's Ghettoside (review/summary here), which argues that black Americans are particularly subject to simultaneous over- and under-policing, where the cops hassle and intimidate them for minor infractions but allow murders to go unsolved.

In fairness to the police, the main reason murders go unsolved in the ghettos is that no one from the ghetto is usually willing to talk to the cops. Which is only partly the result of the cops hastling the residents over minor infractions, and some of the hastling is pretextual to try to solve those bigger crimes.

I have little reason to believe the US is worse at solving murders or has a worse clearance rate compared to other countries. I think there are major factors at play here https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/feb/16/us-murder-clearance-rates-among-lowest-world/

So the black man is also getting shafted by anarcho-tyranny. Seems to check out.

allow murders to go unsolved.

Isn't the usual leftist response to observing the disparity in FBI sourced per-capita murder rates by race, that white murderers, not Black ones aren't prosecuted?

I have never heard anyone say that. So it can't be that usual of a response.

I think there might be some mix-up here:

  • at the level of "here's a dead body with signs of obvious violent death" no investigation or prosecution is needed. A homicide case is opened and percolates into various crime statistics that say the Blacks are getting killed at a higher rate than the Whites

  • then there's the investigation and that's where many tougher cases are quietly dropped and go cold. The victim's family and friends often know the perpetrator, but won't cooperate either because they don't talk to cops as a rule or because they are afraid of retaliation

  • finally, there's the trial and that's where the Blacks finally get harsher conviction rates and sentences