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 -
Beyond general freedom as an argument - if you start restricting the rights of individuals based on their genetic predispositions, why stop at black vs white?
The crime rate difference between whites and asians is even greater than between whites and blacks. Left handed people are more likely to be criminals as well. And of course, the crime rate difference between men and women is gigantic.
Despite that, I highly doubt @ArjinFerman and the other race realists here are sexist against men and racist against all ethnicities other than East Asian.
Of course I am. Of course lower-class German men are more suspicious than middle-class Turkish women.
Asians, dunno. Not enough of them here to form proper prejudice.
More options
Context Copy link
This seems like a modus ponens/modus tollens situation. If you ask people this hypothetical:
is there any demographic in the entire world for which the majority wouldn't answer B? Young men, young women, old men, old women, black men, white men, black women, white women, gay men, gay women, straight men, straight women - if traveling by themselves, everyone feels safer in a train full of young female people than a train full of young male people.
Does this imply that 100% of young male people are violent and dangerous, or that no one has ever been stabbed for their wallet by a young female person? No, of course not. But everyone understands the risk calculus, and as far as I understand it, "race realists" are simply arguing that the risk calculus is comparably true of certain other salient identity characteristics besides sex. More than that - they are arguing that everyone (whether liberal or conservative) is already using this risk calculus and adjusting their behaviour accordingly, even if they've been trained to believe it's wrong to do so, even if they claim that's not what they're doing (but their revealed preferences say otherwise).
More options
Context Copy link
While I will not speak for anyone else, I would much prefer to stop at "take legal colorblindness both seriously and literally."
I won't argue to restrict rights of individuals based on genetic predispositions. Can we agree to not grant people additional privileges based on genetic predispositions in terms of interacting with law and ignoring reality?
More options
Context Copy link
There are plenty of ways in which The System™ very much accounts for this. I've never seen anyone in-ernest complaining that disparate conviction rates on the basis of gender being a sign of "Systemic Sexism". We got rid of all the exclusively-male spaces, but still allow women's-specific institutions: see the fervor on both sides of the trans issue, but the takes aren't typically "eliminate the women's restroom completely" or "repeal Title IX to have a single sports league again".
And honestly I think I'm okay with it that way.
FYI, the person you're replying to identifies as a trans woman, and hence has a lot of skin in this particular game.
I am somewhat critical of the entire gender movement, but also generally okay with consenting adults doing consenting adult things without bothering the rest of us, but I don't think it really matters too much to the example here: the remaining generally-agreed-upon systemic sexism that does exist goes mostly in one direction, which is why there isn't much drama about accepting trans men (not perceived as dangerous), but lots about trans women.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Even though that is, of course, exactly what's happening. We more often do that for conviction terms since it's more measurable there.
Female anti-sociality takes a lot more work to root out and is a lot more plausibly deniable than male anti-social behavior, due to a variety of factors (some evolutionary, some not). So a legal system that only sees on bright lines only punishes them when they act out in ways that match male anti-social behavior, which is called that because men function more along those lines.
The ways in we used to tamp down on this behavior in an equal way is what feminists mean when they say "sexism": fuzzy social laws designed to deal with the gender whose anti-social behavior is inherently harder to police in an equitable way compared to the way we punish male anti-social behavior (which we can at least gather evidence for).
Just because you aren't looking for it, or don't have the words to describe it (because they have perhaps been erased) doesn't mean the intent isn't there. Defining rape in a way only men can commit it doesn't magically make women incapable of it.
What's good for the gander is good for the goose.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Obviously yes, I agree that we shouldn’t get into DNA screening people and preemptively punishing them. However when it comes to men I actually do favor some sexist restrictions against men. For example I think men should have probably have more firearm purchase restrictions than women. Maybe even requiring 2 adult women to testify to a man’s good character to purchase a firearm seems reasonable, while such a restriction on women would be unnecessary
Then when a woman purchases the firearms that are used in a capital crime due to this restriction we can give them honorary doctorates.
You joke, but firearms purchases by gangsters girlfriends are already a major problem that democrats won't address because it isn't posturing at lawful gun owners and republicans won't address because it admits gun violence is a problem.
Make the guns women are allowed to buy pink. Make unpinking a gun a felony. Hell, make the bullet casings pink too.
More options
Context Copy link
I've seen Republican congressmen go after multiple DOJ officials including FBI directors for not going after the straw purchasers. The fact is that the DOJ and FBI are all filled with strivers (and more and more left of center strivers these days) that don't care about cases that won't get them in the news. They would rather spend 22 months building a shaky case against a state senator for taking a $5k gift from a friend who is also a donor who also might have benefited from some legislation the state senator was going to vote for based on ideology anyways than spend 2 months rolling up a crew of armed robbers who hit 7/11s in 5 states. Plus the arresting black women thing is a problem for many ideologically.
More options
Context Copy link
The federal agencies in question refuse to prosecute. How would you suggest Republicans force them to start prosecuting? Should we make it double illegal, so that they can decline to prosecute two federal felonies rather than one?
Pointing out the ways in which the Federal Bureaucracy make a complete hash out of rule of law is something we've been fighting aggressively to get into the overton window for some time now. "Stop trying to pass new gun regulations and simply enforce the ones we already have" has been a foundational part of Republican argumentation on the gun issue for the last thirty years at least.
My suggestion — personnel is policy. Purge the people who work for those agencies, and replace them with people who will prosecute. It's the same advice I give when it comes to every way in which the Federal bureaucracy are being Leftists who #Resist when Republicans win elections. (Note, I didn't say "when Republicans are in charge" because merely winning elections and taking charge are two different things.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I absolutely am sexist against men as far violence is concerned, my views on the necessity of women-only spaces re: trans issues are informed by that. As far as racism goes, I prefer not to do it at all, actually, and I appreciate it if things I say, like "I'm perfectly happy leaving well enough alone when it comes to race" and "I don't want to become Steve Sailer", aren't ignored in the future.
More options
Context Copy link
Alternate solution, charge more young murderers as adults, and enforce the death penalty. If you, say, stab someone completely unprovoked while you are in highschool in front of a dozen people and murder them, you just get put to death. Fucking done, don't need you in society, don't need to give you a chance to have more congenital felons.
Supposedly Europe pretty regularly executed the most antisocial among them for about 1000 years. Took them from illiterate looting and pillaging barbarians to the masters of the world with more intellectual achievements than any other group in history.
And then they committed civilizational suicide, so maybe I don't know exactly what the moral is supposed to be. But more death penalty is probably good?
I think I'd be a little more suspicious of the causality there if I were you. I can name a number of ancient societies that were quite harsh and proactive about punishment of crime, and prosperity doesn't always automatically follow. Unless you think the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, and Iranian theocracy are the up-and-comers on the world stage.
From a data optimization perspective I actually think some kind of three-strikes system is actually not half bad, but complex systems are complex so easy solutions don't always work as expected.
More options
Context Copy link
Perhaps that a society can domesticate themselves too much.
Right, what is the optimal level of anti-social behavior in a society? The downsides of too much are obvious and well-understood, but the downsides of too little are perhaps obscure and pernicious in their own way.
I really don't much like the idea of forcing all groups into some kind of equity in murder rates. Real diversity demands diverse outcomes, or it doesn't mean anything, but large differences between people in the same polity are clearly an issue.
Reminds me of those people complaining that they don't like cops because they're so aggressive, scary and intimidating.
Well, duh. That's not by accident, it's by design. Given the nature of their jobs, cops have to be a credible threat to people who deal drugs and murder people for a living. If they aren't scary to those people, they can't do their jobs properly, which inevitably means they're going to come off as a bit scary to people to whom they don't know whether or not they're violent drug dealers i.e. you when they pull you over in a routine traffic stop.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because that's where the biggest gains are to made at the lowest cost.
I don't actually advocate for doing it, but it's obvious why someone would focus on that first.
More options
Context Copy link
You cannot move from an "ought-not" to an "is-not", any more than you can move from an "is" to an "ought".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link