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 not all three; it's missing No. 2, i. e. the only one that gives us a chance of getting to the stars.
I do not condone what Mr Hasan did. The only reason I don't support his execution is that it leaves society with no further measures to apply to even worse crimes. Be that as it may, however, the murders at Fort Hood were a crime committed by one individual against forty-five other individuals. They were not committed by 'the Arab race' against 'the white race'. (Two of the slain, Maj. Libardo Eduardo Caraveo and Pfc. Kham See Xiong, were born in Mexico and Thailand.)
That's a nonstarter to begin with. At some point the best you can do is annihilate the criminal, regardless of the crime.
...thus, if we have the death penalty, it ought to be applied to David and Louise Turpin, and not to Nidal Hasan.
The reasoning of someone who wants to mininize capital punishment rather than minimize horrifying crime.
The correct thing to do is kill them all.
The crimes committed by Mr and Mrs Turpin are so much more horrifying than that committed by Mr Hasan that to give them the same sentence, whatever that sentence may be, is an insult to every child who has been comparably victimised.
Which leaves no societal acknowledgement of the greater enormity of the Turpin case. Mr and Mrs Turpin betrayed a far more sacred trust than Mr Hasan.
The idea that the severity of all possible sentences must be mapped to the gravity of all possible crimes in some kind of proportional system is preposterous. It's a demand for a mathematical relationship that does not exist.
To take it ad absurdum: Criminals can commit arbitrarily grievous crimes. Especially productive criminals can commit crimes that are, numerically, up to millions of times worse than whatever a given murderer accomplished. So must the murderer's punishment then be a million times lighter than that of an industrial-scale genocider? You can't super-duper-ultra-execute Hitler and you can't mega-crucify Stalin and you can't imprison Putin for ten thousand years. Does that mean that relatively small-timer like Anders Breivik needs to get off with a slap on the wrist?
The most grevious crimes aren't a competition in which each contestant needs a reward proportional to their accomplishment. The criminals committing these crimes have overstepped all boundaries and need to be removed from existence, and that is the most that can be done and the least that should be done.
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