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 -
Just before Covid, a gun store was robbed in my town. I worked in a different gun store, so we got some of the inside scoop. Proprietor of the robbed store used to work on my computer whenever I fucked it up too badly. The shop was the shittiest one in the county, lodged in a former meat market. The robbers just pulled part of the roof off the building to get into the secure room.
Turned out to be the local high school football team. They stole around fifty guns, fifteen of which have been recovered some seven years later. The recovered guns have been used in at least three homicides so far. One was just recovered at a traffic stop this year, one killed a high school senior just after prom not two weeks ago. Perp there hasn't been identified or caught.
The kids who robbed the place were caught within days. It remains unclear exactly how many people were involved, at least two unnamed juveniles were processed, but shield laws prevent the public knowing anything. Three of the older kids were charged for the robbery, one got no time, other two got three and ten months respectively, despite not cooperating with police in the recovery of the firearms or identification of other perpetrators. Everyone involved was put into a youth criminal diversion program that released them without a criminal record.
The ringleader and one who got the most time, one Travontis (Drink!) Miller, was given the ten month sentence, but due to the protective nature of the diversion program, it will never be public knowledge that he plead guilty to multiple firearm felonies or how long he actually served of that jail term. What we do know is that he was out prior to December of 2021, because that's when he was arrested for a series of other crimes we're not entirely sure what happened.
He was charged with assault and battery (strangulation), robbery and domestic violence, but once again was given protected youth status despite being in his twenties by this point (the program runs until age 24). He also picked up charges of resisting arrest and being in possession of one of the stolen firearms from the original gun store case. These charges too were concealed under the diversion program.
So when people tell me that what we really need to cut down on gun violence in this country is to ensure that every state has a different magazine limit, or force used gun sales into stores, or ban AR-15s, or not allow gun companies to advertise, it makes me irrationally angry. This dude, when he hits 25, will have no criminal record and will be able to pass a background check to buy a firearm legally. At least until his next felony, which I don't expect to take long.
Below are two quote sets for those who didn't read the articles, first the prosecution in the original case:
The judge wasn't interested, and had The Science on his side.
But sure, the problem with gun violence in the US is that Billy Bob put a giggle trigger on his PSA.
Edit: added/fixed links
Being extremely violent as a minor is indicative of a deep genetic behavioral problem that will never be fixed, while slipping up once at the age of 27 is indicative of external pressure such as poverty, conflict, or addiction, which could be fixed with a diversion program. So these judges have it turned on its head, high school aged felons should go to prison for life while older first time felons should be given a second chance more often.
Are you talking about committing the same crime, for the first time, at 15 versus 27?
Yes, like beginning to deal drugs or robbing.
It is observed approximately across the entire world that people (especially men) are worse at impulse control and thinking of consequences in their teens than in their late 20s and onwards. That them being more prone to violence (let alone a nonviolent crime like dealing drugs) is indicative of deep genetic unfixable problems is a claim I do not find even remotely substantiated, to put it mildly.
There are crimes that do indicate deep genetic unfixable problems, but that area is closer to "serial killing" than "drug dealing".
It is a confounding factor that most penitentiary systems I know of engender recidivism, either by leniency or by doing little other than locking first-time criminals in the same social circle as other criminals, while depriving them of opportunities to build a legal and dignifying career.
I think you're looking at it primarily through the lens of the innate qualities of people depending on their age group, while I'm thinking that social factors prevail. To sort this out, we need to know effect sizes. If the development effect size is very large, then you are more likely to be right, while if it's smaller, I am more likely to be right. IIRC, the actual difference on impulse control between a 17 and a 27 year old is at most something like 0.20 SDs. Which is like 3 IQ points. Being 3 IQ points lower will predispose you to crime, but not by that much.
What are the social factors, then? Well, minors are usually micro-managed. They're kind of pre-imprisoned, and also they're taken care of economically. There's also this idea that everyone has a per-year probability of committing a felony. Someone who commits a felony very young is expected to have a much higher latent probability than someone who does it much later. The impulse control effect size is too small to offset this fact.
And I was also thinking that a 27 year old will likely be motivated by economics, whereas a 17 year old is more likely to have pervasive anti-social behavior, since the 17 year old is supposed to be taken care of while the 27 year old has to deal with being relatively young in a shaky economy, maybe having a baby to feed and so on. I'm much more sympathetic to a 27 year old who robbed to feed his kids after getting laid off 4 months ago and struggling to find a job than I am to the 17 year old who did it because it was fun. It was not fun to me at 17. That 17 year old is a sociopath and brain development will not save them.
Of course, sometimes minors have economic pressures and are not being taken care of, or they are influenced by older criminal relatives to commit crimes, and I do agree with courts taking these factors into account when they are present. But the default way they look at age is naive at best.
I believe it is both development and social factors. Minors are more likely to be in a social group revolving around delinquency and crime, on account of not having a job that would take their time up (and be a better prospect for earning money). While they are usually fed and clothed, having a way to earn extra money gives them more freedom and status. Unfortunately, the state of the job market for young people looks like the opposite of freedom and status, even if manning the counter of McDonalds does pay a bit. Thus does drug dealing look more appealing.
I do not believe robbery is always an expression of antisociality. Robbery is very high status and a lauded activity when you do it to outsiders, as part of an army or a warband. Thus we must look at the teen's connection to the broader society. Is he a part of it, and yet robbing the same kind of people he socializes with? Or does he consider society overall a separate group from himself and his warband? The society that, in your own words, pre-imprisons him?
I find it ironic that not long ago you extolled the virtue of society supporting its youth, to the extent of darkly hinting at taking everything from the useless olds, and yet it's somehow bad when teens actually rob the useless olds.
The court system is in a bind. Imprisonment as it currently exists is barbaric and appears to do the opposite of rehabilitating first-timers. Thus the court is moved to be lenient to sympathetic criminals that appear to be fixable, because no other kind of punishment exists. I increasingly favor corporal punishment. Straightforwardly and immediately unpleasant, hardly more undignified than locking you up for years somewhere where you're almost certainly be beaten just as much or more (but extrajudicially and invisibly), you don't get to hang out for years with the cool tough criminal guys in case you considered that kind of a man cool, and you go back to fixing your life immediately.
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
More options
Context Copy link