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 -
Are there any good discussions on the ethics of using public genealogy databases to catch criminals? The idea of using a 23andMe or Ancestry.com database to test against DNA left at a crime scene went mainstream a few years ago when police used a public database to find and track the Golden State Killer. Now, police from Moscow, Idaho have done it again in tracking Bryan Kohberger, who is accused of killing four University of Idaho students:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/idaho-murder-suspect-arrest-genealogy-b2254498.html
I am a bit conflicted on how I feel about this. On the one hand, obviously the police should do everything in their power to catch murderers. But there is a certain amount of dystopian doom in being able to access such a database. The problem is you don't even need to have your DNA uploaded to the database for the cops to find you. A fourth or fifth cousin's DNA gives the police enough information to create a family tree and zero in on a particular suspect.
I have a couple problems with this, the first of which is that it doesn't seem like it should be legal that the government essentially can track me by my DNA without any sort of consent. The second problem I have is that DNA evidence is not nearly as reliable as people seem to think. Hair and touch DNA are constantly contaminating crime scenes. Hairs can be picked up anywhere, from the police who investigate the scene, to techs, to medical examiners, to the bodies of the victims themselves. Granted this is not as applicable if the suspect's blood is at the scene, but nevertheless, DNA evidence is not foolproof, yet juries seem to convict as if it is.
I tend to lean a bit more anti-authoritarian, so perhaps this is my own personal bias, but it seems we need to regulate this type of DNA testing.
The way I see it, more evidence is always a good thing. But, just like all forensic science, should be used to complete a hypothesis, not lead it.
I find fears about the legality of surveillance to be overblown. Not because it isn't happening, but because it will happen whether you like it or not. The NSA didn't wait for internet surveillance to be legal before widely deploying it.
In 2022, we live in a world where there is no real power balance between the state and the citizen. If the state wants to fuck you over, they will be able to. Your consent, safety and privacy are illusions that the state maintains so you can sleep at night, and that's that.
At the same time, to keep up appearances, public society has their hands tied. They can't use this technology to solve issues that are technologically tractable but are legally blocked off. If the NSA is going to spy on every camera in America irrespective of legality, then I want to see who was robbing my house.
In the same way, these geneology databases are going to happen whether you like it or not. If it's going to be at the disposal of 3-letter agencies, then I would want for it to be used when a loved one gets killed.
The USA gets the worst of both worlds. It allows overt violence in terms of what law-enforcement can do, but takes away all peaceful tools for conflict resolution from the same law enforcement.
It makes the immigration process painfully difficult, while allowing weird loopholes that encourage illegal immigrants to be 'at large' in the country.
It has an incredibly harsh sentencing system, but does not allow law enforcement to actually be sure of who the criminal is.
I am more uncomfortable with an innocent man going to prison or a serial killer being at large, than having my DNA be public. I am more uncomfortable with safety & sexual assault concerns due to street criminals, than being IDed using a country wide face recognition system. I am more uncomfortable with cities decaying due to people with mental health problems slowly dying due to fentanyl abuse, than non-consensual detaining of these people a homeless-shelter with stringent sobriety rules.
It is not that I trust the Govt. It is that I'm sure the Govt. WILL violate my rights if they really want to get me. (see Assange, Snowden or dozens other cases where the national guard gets called in). If those rights will be violated anyway, I'd rather also reap the benefits of this intrusive technology.
This assumes that the Gov't is interested in using that advanced technology to actually provide you benefits, or to stop certain kinds of criminals/nuisance-individuals. The problem now is not resourcing. It is will.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link