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 -
That's only one way to look at it, no? By demanding such "protection" we cause a lot of unnecessary suffering.
If ad infinitum problems crop up, that's a bug of the legal system, not of the moral code behind the legal system. Not every legal system has this issue.
Was the notary licensed at the time of notarization? If so then it's legit. If not no. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes of the court's time with a sufficiently competent legal system.
It's only "unnecessary suffering" if you ignore the suffering caused to loved ones when someone they knew and loved has died. Most people are distraught when a friend, family member, relative, etc. commits suicide.
No, you can't just ignore second-order consequences. Not every change you make to a system is isolated and affects only that one particular area of the system. Laws can interact in sometimes surprising ways. For example, if a state legalizes marijuana, then cops can no longer use the smell of marijuana alone to establish probable cause for searching a vehicle. Or if it's legal in a state to carry a concealed firearm (especially permitless carry) then cops can no longer "stop and frisk" a suspect based on someone saying they're armed, unless they also say they're committing a crime in some way (the standard is armed and dangerous).
Fixing the problems with using notaries as the basis of evidence is not so simple. If we allowed murder in the case of consent, there would be a huge incentive to create fake notaries or otherwise fake documentation supporting the murder. After all, it's easier than getting away with murder by killing witnesses, covering up evidence or the other usual means of doing it. And it's not like the victim can even testify against them. The short story "Infodeath" by Ben Sheffield provides a good example where (spoiler alert) someone gets tricked into signing paperwork saying they wanted to commit suicide by lethal injection, then gets forced to have said lethal injection, and dies nonconsensually.
Well, duh? I don't see how any of those examples are relevant. That's exactly how you would expect the second-order effects of those laws to propagate throughout the legal system.
Not a problem because notaries are appointed by the state. How would you even have fake notaries? If the state doesn't recognize the notary then obviously the notary's testimony or signature is worthless.
It really feels to me like you're overcomplicating this. Okay, let's say the US legal system is too fucked up to make this workable. Fair enough, the US legal system takes a lot of good ideas and fucks them up, like allowing for the capture of regulatory agencies. Doesn't mean that regulating industries is a bad idea in and of itself, just means that the US is bad at doing it.
You can throw at me all the nitty gritty problems that might exist in some hypothetical poorly implementation version of them, and okay, I'll grant you that such a piss poor implementation is a really bad idea. I don't see how that changes anything at all.
You would have a notary appointed by the state, but one that's paid off so they can notarize fradulent consensual-murder documents. You seem to be lacking a security mindset and not at all thinking about the many ways consensual murder could go very, very wrong.
No, I'm not bringing up some hypothetical poor implementation of the idea. I'm bringing up the challenges that every single implementation would have. These problems aren't avoidable by saying "just get a better implementation, bro". They're inherent and fundamental and will happen unless there's a solution for them. I'm not saying there aren't any solutions, either -- however, solutions aren't exempt from having knock-on effects as well. At what level of hackjob patches, fixes and workarounds, and workarounds to those workarounds will you admit that it's not worth it to have consensual murder anymore? I think it's simplest to just not have consensual murder. The benefits are questionable and the costs are enormous.
Interestingly, your entire line of argument against consensual murder also boils down to this:
Which is not meaningfully distinct from progressivism or traditionalism, which come up with this (bad faith) answer for the exact same reason.
My final answer- that being the liberal one- is simply to state that the optimum amount of possible bad relationships is not zero.
No, it doesn't. I would never use the same logic to argue against consensual sex. The two don't even remotely compare.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That "suffering" should be ignored as they deserve it for not relieving their "loved one's" suffering. If someone you love is suffering so much that they kill themselves, you owe it to them to bear the pain their death causes you. It's the least you can do since you failed them so miserably while they were still alive.
If someone is suicidal it's not because you failed them, it's not because society failed them, it's because something in their brain is making them want to kill themselves. The vast majority of suicidal bouts last less than two minutes, which is why very simple interventions like locking rooftops and withdrawing gas ovens are usually enough. The suicidals I have known were good, decent people who regretted both their own suffering and the suffering they couldn't help inflicting on their loved ones.
You failed them so you deserve this.
If you were just nicer to me, I wouldn't be like this.
This is the logic of narcissists and abusers.
And "How dare you kill yourself to relieve your own suffering. What about my suffering?" isn't?
Suicide is bad. Other people's suffering is part of why it's bad. The loss of a person, with all their potential, is another part.
For any form of suffering, you can find people who bore it bravely and often even cheerfully. Conversely, there is no life that is good enough, loved enough, respected enough to stop some people from killing themselves.
The difference between suicidal people and everyone else is not that they suffer more and need to kill themselves to make it stop, it's that they have a brain and a disposition that makes them want to kill themselves. Often this comes in very short bouts, as I say. Often it's fixable. I have known somebody whose father killed himself, who inherited his father's condition and tried to kill himself as well, thankfully failed, and is now living a reasonably happy life 99% of the time. He has bad days and needs to kept from harm on those days.
There is no need to agree with an irrational person about the nature of their condition, nor the solution thereof.
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
More options
Context Copy link