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 -
Definitely a stretch in the raw legal terms of it, but I like the idea.
Murder in the US is overwhelmingly the result of strained interactions between males 18 - 34. If a man gets murdered, they're very likely to have known their killer and to have had a recent dispute around drugs, money, respect / social esteem, or a woman via love triangle. For women who get killed, the stats are even crazier - something around a 90% chance their killer was a previous or current romantic partner.
Random acts of lethal violence like this one truly are rare and shocking. I like the idea that, for such cases, we ratchet the punishment up to eleven. This isn't to say that we should shrug at "normal" murders. "Murder stay murder," to quote the Wire. But I like throwing a terrorism or federal level hate crime charge in there. I know deterrence theory for criminal punishment is one of the wobbliest concepts out there in terms of efficacy, but if a random act of violence gets a no-buts-about-it life sentence with no parole, I have to imagine that would have an effect...For those in control of their faculties.
Which brings up the point about the culpability of schizophrenics, drug addicts etc. There's a lot of landmines here in terms of personal liberties and the slippery slope power of the State to lock people up for being cooky, but the alternative (and current) situation is that sane society carries around this socialized risk of literal death that is also quite obvious and easy to mitigate; DeCarlos Brown had a decade long rap sheet, which included prior armed robbery and assault. Jordan Neely (of the Daniel Penny incident), IIRC, had been arrested over 100 times in NYC. The stats are almost a pareto distribution; "top" 1% of criminals are responsible for 63% of convictions per NIH - it's darkly ironic that that's being published by the National Institute for Health. When these big red alarms keep going off, eventually it rises to the level of a literal public health issue to not intervene with these individuals.
Deterrence Theory of Punishment works exceptionally well, if there is a high certainty of punishment. It's not necessarily the severity of the potential punishment that matters, though of course life in prison for shoplifting would probably reduce the shoplifting rate for the week it would take SCOTUS to strike the law down as an 8th Amendment violation, but the certainty of punishment that matters. Quoting part of a journal article here that jives with my own understanding of the matter:
Page 4. The article goes on to list a few different studies that have come to this conclusion, which I won't bore you by repeating because to the best of my knowledge this is not particularly contentious. To provide an n=1 personal anecdote, there's a section of road I used to drive that had a speed limit of 35mph. This was perceived as a ridiculously low speed limit. A driver could very easily go 55 safely, and indeed many, many people did, because why not? There were no intersections, no red lights, no stop signs, no school zone, no earthly reason for the speed limit to be 35 that anyone could see. Presumably there was some very good reason for it to be so labeled, but it was not immediately apparent as to why so most people went much faster. The county (presumably) installed a series of speed cameras along the road. For a few weeks, the road went at a very sedate pace because everyone knew that if they went over 40mph they'd be getting a ticket in the mail. This lasted until everyone knew where the cameras were, at which point traffic began to slow down approaching a known camera location, and then immediately speed back up after. A measurable change in criminal(ish) behavior due to certainty of punishment. It didn't matter that the fines were relatively minor, perhaps $40, nobody wanted the hassle.
So all this to say, while treating random acts of lethal violence far more seriously may reduce the incidence rate of random acts of lethal violence, it won't do so as long as people think they can get away with it, or aren't thinking about the consequences at all. Certainty of punishment breeds compliance.
This is very insightful, thank you.
I am reminded of listening to Rafael Mangual on Coleman Hughes' podcast. The stat he related (which made me literally rewind the podcast) was that the average state / federal prison inmate (not jail) already has over six felony convictions before they are incarcerated. They went on to discuss how this is a direct result of more lenient probation and deferred sentencing / alternative sentencing "reform."
But, as your article points out, think of the incentive and messaging we're sending to criminals. You can learn the robes of armed robbery, drug dealing, even assault, and you get to play on easy mode the first half dozen times. Of course this is going to backfire.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link