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 -
Hold on.
Didn’t we try “tough on crime” over and over again? Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, all spearheading different approaches to shooting the dealers and locking up the addicts. Okay, Nixon had a really confusing stance on remediation, but his admin popularized the “war on drugs!” So what were these guys doing wrong?
@JarJarJedi and @FarNearEverywhere posit that progressive idpol is holding us back from implementing harsh solutions. This train wreck of a wiki article suggests the same…but most of its examples are post 2010. There were massive race riots before Clinton was elected, yet the 1994 crime bill saw huge bipartisan support. Reagan wasn’t deferring to victim narratives. It’s plausible that today, progressives are unwilling to accept the trade off, but that doesn’t explain what happened in the 80s and 90s.
I’m sympathetic to the argument below: America is so damn rich that our drug-addled homeless don’t mind it too much. That demand curve makes it hard to suppress the supply of drugs. Maybe reinstitutionalizing would help make up the difference. I just have little confidence that it would succeed where two generations have failed.
Yes, we did try "tough on crime" and it worked. The U.S. murder rate fell by large amounts and reached a minimum in the 2010s a few years after the peak in the prison population. The fall in murder rates was perhaps most visible in New York where it fell from about a peak of 30.7 in 1990 to just 3.4 in 2018.
Unfortunately, we've done a complete 180 and now are extremely permissive. In today's news in my hometown of Seattle, a person was arrested after committing a violent assault against a tourist while spewing racial slurs. (The story was mysteriously short on other details). The particular offender had been arrested 47 previous times.
https://old.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/11tqdik/man_arrested_for_committing_racial_hate_crime/
The "War on Drugs" was also largely successful. Drug overdoses per capita during the 1980s were less than 1/10th current rates. Yes, that's correct. Drug overdose rates have increased by more than 1000% since the 1980s.
As is typical, in an effort to reign in rare abuses, we've thrown the baby out with the bathwater and now tolerate exceptional rates of drug use and violent crime.
Homicide rates and other forms of crime rates dropped in more places than the US during that timeframe. Surely not all of them concurrently decided to go hard on crime at that same exact time, there's probably something else at play here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_drop
Not saying the US's approach to reducing crime was strategically the wrong thing to do, but there is a confounder here.
The US has a steep drop in the 90s while Europe actually ends the decade higher than it started. South America is mostly flat during that time. I'm not seeing a global trend matching the US one during the 90s when we adopted tough on crime policies like 3 strikes laws.
More options
Context Copy link
What is the confounder specifically? Are criminals some form of a global hivemind, and if they decide to do less crime in one place that somehow affects every other place?
It's more we stopped poisoning people with lead, everybody could track crime better due to computers, and frankly, entertainment like video games and the Internet became more prominent. I'm not going to say tough-on-crime proposals did nothing, but most crime is not some rational choice made.
So howcome there's a rise in crime since BLM, and the implementation of "easy on crime" policies?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't have any explanation better than what the Wikipedia article says.
I phrased it wrong, there might or might not be a confounder, but the base rate of crime was reduced globally, and that fact itself raises the question of "did the US's tough-on-crime policy actually work?". Also worth noting is that crime went up in almost all countries that in any way shape or form facilitated the illicit drug trade, so the effect is starker than averages would imply.
Extremely wild ass uninformed guess, but what if crime was offshored via globalization and its resulting specialization? Instead of producing and distributing some drugs everywhere, why not let Colombia and Mexico do all of it?
The question is much bigger than that. You can ask it about literally anything in social sciences, and you'll never know the answer because you can't rerun an experiment under controlled conditions.
If education counts as "social science", yes you can run trials and experiments according to most rigorous scientific standards, and you can also completely disregard the results and drop the whole thing into memory hole.
Official line for introduction
Twitter thread following the crumbs into rabbit hole, with links to further resources
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, we are in agreement. I even conceded that to reduce crime.. you must attempt to reduce crime.
But I am from the school of unintended consequences and not wanting to fall for base rate fallacies. So from my vantage point, its not too unfathomable that a confounder probably does exist, it seems to be the Occams Razor explanation for the Crime Drop.
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