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 -
As before I will emphasize that I am a physician so my speaking is more to the medical model than the psychological one.
Physicians are often asked to "predict the future" we usually can't do this. People will ask "what will happen with my cancer" or other physicians will ask "is this patient medically cleared for surgery."
Usually we are only able to risk stratify. In the case of homicidal/violent ideation and suicidal ideation this is usually further bucketed into acute or chronic risk. Owning a gun ticks the needle substantially towards murder and completed suicide.
These are actuarial judgements more than practical ones. Is this person safe for discharge? At this time they have a low acute risk of harming themselves or others. Maybe 1/100 of people discharged in this way shoves someone onto the subway tracks. Maybe it is 1/1000. We cannot say definitively what an individual person would be, just as I can't tell someone asking about their malignancy what it is going to do. I can also speak of ratios and other such things.
As a matter of public policy you have to choose which things are sufficiently discriminatory to violate individual rights for the safety of the community. Having committed a felony? Yeah pretty convincing you shouldn't own guns anymore. I think most if not all states add an involuntary commitment to the list. If something increases your risk of doing bad shit 1,000 fold, maybe 10,000 fold? Pretty good argument that it's bad.
To the person here, when I speak about what this person reminds me of it's because I have not spoken to this patient or read his records. I can tell you that he pattern matches to other similar people who do meet criteria for something bad or I've treated in a forensic setting for having done bad shit who just need routine care because people get sick in jail. If interviewed as an adult a reasonable physician would likely be comfortable with a diagnosis like ASPD or NPD if the pattern of behavior holds.
Someone with those diagnosis are the central example of someone who should proactively have their rights taken away due to a tendency to violate the rights of others being a core part of the pathology.
I see some additional things in here like "Politicians justify releasing violent criminals from prison on the grounds that their problems are psychological, and thus implicitly treatable." I don't think that's what they are arguing, personality disorders are in general hard to treat and there is a reasonable stance that ASPD cannot be treated at all.
The actual discussion on this is complex although I imagine politicians are for the most part doing it wrong.
This was batched out at work quickly, apologies for typos etc.
More options
Context Copy link