site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 10, 2023

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.

14
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is this where you meant to reply?

It certainly didn't end up where I meant for it to go.

What now? Delete?

That, or maybe just link to wherever you intended it.

W.H, liberal morality, and why co-existence is undesirable

A little while ago, I read a story of a recent scandal which I think conclusively shows that the Dems have finally gone too far. You see, the state legislature of Massachusetts passed a prisoner rehabilitation weekend pass program, in which prisoners with good behavior could obtain leave to spend time unsupervised in society and then return to serve their sentences. Unfortunately they forgot to exclude first degree murderers serving life without parole sentences who, for obvious reasons, could not be trusted to return. As such, the court said they must be allowed to participate unless the legislature specifically excluded them. The legislature passed a new bill to do so, but the Massachusetts governor vetoed the bill.

Enter inmate W.H, who with his 2 friends got bored robbing a cooperative teenage clerk, so they stabbed him 18 times and threw him in a dumpster. Sentenced to life without parole, he was furloughed from prison and escaped. But normal life was of course boring. So predictably, he broke into a woman's home with a pistol, tied up her boyfriend, stabbed him, and then raped her in front of him.

Perceptive readers will have guessed by now that by recent, I mean 36 years ago. You see W.H is Willie Horton, the governor was Michael Dukakis and this was the scandal that helped sink his campaign for president. or as the Times covered it back then:

"Foes accuse Bush campaign of inflamming racial tension": https://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL=https%253A//www.nytimes.com/1988/10/24/us/foes-accuse-bush-campaign-of-inflaming-racial-tension.html#site-content

Now, as much as i'd like to dunk on the Times they didn't cherrypick random nobodies. Their sources for the accusation of "inflaming the nation's racial fears", Dukakis' running mate, Jesse Jackson and the future DNC chair, Dona Brazille. And of course, if you look up Willie Horton today, basically every non-conservative source including your high school teacher will tell you about the "infamous"... ad, which unlike unleashing rape and murder on your innocent citizens violates the sacred values of our Democracy or something. Some degree of deliberate unrestricted warfare is going on here, but I don't think this fully explains it. I'm reminded of Amy Biel who went to South Africa to fight apartheid, only to be pulled out a car by a black mob which slaughtered her despite the protests of her black friends that she was on their side. And then her parents flew into the country to testify a the "truth and reconciliation committee" in favor of releasing her murderers. They then started a foundation and hired these murderers.

Hlynka, I'm sure, will find a way to call them hypocrites. Moldbug will ask, 'but don't these elves eat great food'? As for me, I neither desire nor expect cooperation with these people, whatever their thought process or culinary habits. I wanna see the conservative movement* draw a clear unambiguous moral line between us and them, accept those that will cross over, and to crush the opposition permanently and with the same concern they feel for their pets' victims.

Added:

*Of course they are more concerned with saving the enemies' feti.

Added:

Here are the two ads Bush ran on the issue.

Willie Horton ad https://youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y

Revolving door ad https://youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y Note how in the second one, the campaign goes out of it's way to find white criminals for it's footage.

This is it.


WELL THIS IS IT BOYS. I've been Permabanned. I appeal to the other mods not for "a second chance" but for an outright acquittal, as I believe this charge to be a travesty. Paging @naraburns, @ZorbaTHut, @TracingWoodgrains

Commenters who are tempted to draw conclusions from this ban should... do exactly that. Seriously, read @Amadan's rationale and try to defend his integrity. There are people who place no value on your life, and others who, whatever their pretensions to the open discussion of ideas and others who find pointing this out intolerable. The outer party lives on, laundering gross atrocities into respectability by demanding that you not be outraged by them. And so, in this eternal re-run of the scene from "politics and the english language" releasing monsters to slaughter innocents becomes, "a policy that resulted in a criminal doing some crime." Depicting the criminal becomes "racialized imagery", and the promise of open discussion becomes, "I'm not sure how you'd make it relevant today without being pure "boo Democrats,"...

  • -19

Fine, they’re all monsters. You’re saying your side made a mistake, it should have defected, discount any notion of fairness, ignore the rules, engage in terrorism, street battles, coups, civil war. The last 36 years by comparison were intolerable. Is that your point?

You know, it is perfectly possible that both of these things are true: 1) the veto by Dukakis disqualified him from the presidency and it was perfectly fine for Bush campaign to make that argument; and 2) the manner in which the Bush campaign used the issue indeed inflamed racial tension and/or was meant to to appeal to racial prejudice. Your post includes lots of information to determine whether #1 is true, but nothing re whether #2 is true.

Here are the only two ads Bush ran on the issue as far as I'm aware.

Willie Horton ad

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y

Revolving door ad

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y

Note how in the second one, the campaign goes out of it's way to find white criminals for it's footage.

It also shows shows is how much discretion states have with sentencing and prisons versus feds, even for very serious crimes and dangerous offenders. This is why fed prisons are always worse.

The Wikipedia article says that they originally used footage of real criminals but they thought that was too black so they reshot it with white actors. So it actually is pushing a false racial crime narrative just in the opposite way that people think.

but the Massachusetts governor vetoed the bill.

Wait, why? I knew gov Dukakis was liberal but that’s a step far.

Dukakis pocket veto'd a bill in citing interference with reform, but I'm not able to find the exact text of the change to see how broad it was. This is anti-Dukakis and quotes him saying the bill would “cut the heart out of efforts at inmate rehabilitation” but also says the bill's goal was "prohibiting furloughs for any first-degree murderers, or other violent offenders, who were never supposed to be released from prison."

Reform might seem pointless for life sentences without parole, but in practice "life" didn't really mean that. Massachusetts was (and I think still is?) one of the minority of states that requires life without parole for first-degree murder (with a judicially-created exemption for those under 21), and in practice into the 1980s this largely involved a nontrivial number of 'life without parole' cases really just having the governor's commutation board as their parole hearing, and a large majority of commutations were for lifers or lifers-without-parole under the state's mandatory sentences for first- and second-degree murder.

The Wikipedia article about Willie Horton mentions the ad but in a neutral way, it does not claim that the ad was racially motivated, it just mentions that some people alleged that it was racially motivated. Wikipedia is not a conservative source and is almost certainly one of most common places where people go to find out about this matter.

While I agree with Gwern's take on the matter, Wikipedia has also institutionally decided that it isn't a List Of All Things To Ever Have Happened. The "x pounced" framework isn't unusual (though contrast Horton with Daisy), but it is and long has been an active choice, as evidenced by the talk page.

The Wikipedia article about Willie Horton mentions the ad but in a neutral way, it does not claim that the ad was racially motivated, it just mentions that some people alleged that it was racially motivated.

That's how Wikipedia biases articles 80% of the time.

Except the racial controversy is the only reason the ad is remembered 35 years later. How many ads from the last presidential election do you remember?

The last Presidential election had a first-party ad under the candidate's own twitter account insinuate an innocent man was a White Supremacist, so there's at least one that I'd consider people personally and deeply irresponsible for publishing. And this isn't the first time I've brought it up, or even brought it up in a conversation with you, even if I am pleasantly surprised a few other predictions related to that were flubs.

Romney was personally responsible for a woman's cancer death, Kerry had the SwiftBoat mess. Go back a little further and you have the famous Daisy ad and Confessions of a Republican (remade for the 2016 season!) in a single election. "Read My Lips" and "Act of Love" were mostly unusual for being somewhat near honest.

They don't all have wikipedia articles, but a good number are memorable; with the exception of Confessions of a Republican and maybe "Act of Love", I'd hope anyone who's been paying attention politically in the last decade is familiar with most of these. A rare few aren't even attack ads; Reagan's "bear in the woods" ad has a wiki article because... some reason? The deletionists haven't heard about it yet?

It's not like this is even specific to Presidential elections: see The Agenda Project anti-Paul Ryan ad, or the hilariously offensive attack ad on Abbott in Texas.

And the Horton ad is at least believed to have been hugely effective, along with Dukakis' infamous tank ride, as part of why he lost in a landslide. I'm not sure how much I buy that compared to the macro-economic trends or broader policy disagreements -- same for Romney and Kerry, while I think Jeb! had broader and deeper issues than immigration policy -- but at least in claimed reasoning a lot of people point to them.

This post is a perfect example of waging the culture war, rather than talking about it. You are doing literally nothing but. Really, it's a masterclass in illustrating what kind of posts we do not want here and what this place is not for.

A little while ago, I read a story of a recent scandal which I think conclusively shows that the Dems have finally gone too far.

So your lead is "Why my political enemies are terrible." The "story" is about a policy that resulted in a criminal doing some crime. And it's disingenuous, because "a little while ago" implies you're at least talking about a recent event, which might be worth some discussion and debate, but no, your punchline is from 1988. Granted, a lot of folks here are too young to remember Michael Dukakis and the Willie Horton ad, but most people who know anything about 80s politics are familiar with it.

Perhaps this could have been pertinent, if that was actually your objective. It's a classic example which is still brought up today of a political ad that was both powerful and incurred a lot of criticism for its racialized imagery, and thus certainly has some parallels to contemporary debates about political messaging and "dogwhistling." You could have also talked about the policy that Bush was criticizing in more detail. I'm not sure how you'd make it relevant today without being pure "boo Democrats," but it's not like old political dustups from the 80s can never be made relevant for discussion today.

But you didn't even make a shadow of an attempt. It's just pure "Boo Democrats" and "boo black people" plus potshots at all the people you have petty personal grievances with.

And this is your entire schtick.

Each of your last three bans was preceded by multiple warnings in which you were told to bring more light and less heat, and each time, you just come back with another flamebait essay about why the racial group you've chosen to talk about today is anathema, your outgroup is evil, and everyone who disagrees with you is a stupid-head.

Banned, permanently unless the other mods think you deserve yet another chance.

Seconding this ban decision.

I think you could make posts identical to this with regard to almost any ideological leaning. So for every conservative that would cite released criminals murdering again, so could someone else cite the various cases of suicide after DWP withdrew their benefits of the depravity of their enemies, or Trump's pardoning of war criminals etc. etc.

I'm reminded of Amy Biel who went to South Africa to fight apartheid, only to be pulled out a car by a black mob which slaughtered her despite the protests of her black friends that she was on their side. And then her parents flew into the country to testify a the "truth and reconciliation committee" in favour of releasing her murderers. They then started a foundation and hired these murderers.

It's not like Truth and Reconciliation was entirely one-sided though, see for instance Brian Mitchell.

Not giving someone welfare isn't the same as releasing criminals from prison (let alone when they're clearly a career criminal). Having your soldiers kill the wrong people overseas in fundamentally ill-conceived ventures is also very bad but ties into a large and complex problem with thoughtless foreign policy.

US cities have many crazy homeless people who go around harassing and sometimes killing random people. For example: https://abc7ny.com/woman-killed-subway-push-times-square-man-arrested/11471944/

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-suspect-arrested-fatal-stabbing-penn-station-20211206-j6fdh4kjjvg2laq5hilh7dgfay-story.html

Whenever we have a public transport related post, it gets filled with Americans who will refuse to give any ground to an energetically efficient, compact and economical transport system because in their experience, train stations are where drug addicts go to enjoy drugs and harass other people. In my experience outside America, train stations are for catching trains. There are many large costs with having your very rich cities filled with these problem people, breaking into cars and houses, killing people, encouraging emigration. How much immensely valuable real estate is rendered uninhabitable by this 'urban decline'?

Now, this isn't one of the US's biggest problems. Bad diet is probably worse, in terms of general social harm. But this is an egregious and easy-to-solve program. All the US security forces have to do is get rid of the open-air drug encampments, they only have to outwit and overcome mentally ill homeless people! You can put them in an institution, you can enforce higher standards of behaviour by beating them up if they disrupt the public (Singapore doesn't have these problems), or you can shoot the problem people rather than letting them rack up lengthy criminal records. Drug dealers (by which I mean fentanyl and the like) are a net malus for society, they have only a very small chance of making positive contributions and have many bad effects. They should be killed.

Things tend to reach an equilibrium. If you don't maintain your garden, it gets filled with weeds. The problems compound on eachother and it gets much harder to do anything about them. Much better to solve problems while they're small. Imagine if the US was genuinely tough on crime, if they made a serious effort to kill or detain serious criminals, permanently remove them from circulation. Take a leaf out of Bukele's book and arrest all the people with obvious gang tattoos. There's an immediate cost but a long-term gain from not having these people running around causing problems.

If people simply appeal to the 'better ten guilty go free than one innocent be imprisoned' platitude forever, what is to stop the richest cities in the world turning into uncivilized eyesores? What is the point of the legal system, what is the point of our principles if they lead us here? Murder should be very low - the US is a very rich country. Medicine is very good now. There are cameras and drones and sniffer dogs and forensics and so much more! And yet it's going up: https://abcnews.go.com/US/12-major-us-cities-top-annual-homicide-records/story?id=81466453

Drug dealers (by which I mean fentanyl and the like) are a net malus for society, they have only a very small chance of making positive contributions and have many bad effects. They should be killed.

Dealing drugs does not violate anybody's rights. Consuming drugs does not either. Please be careful before calling for the deaths of innocent people.

Drug dealers provide positive contributions to drug enjoyers.

If you had a choice between living in a society where 0% of the population used fentanyl and one where 80% did, which would you choose? Which is better?

At the end of the day, rights are there to get or avoid certain results. If the results are bad, one option is to change rights.

If you had a choice between living in a society where 0% of the population used fentanyl and one where 80% did, which would you choose? Which is better?

If 80 percent of people would use fentanyl if it were permitted, then I would rather live in the society which allows it because I would probably be one of the people using it.

At the end of the day, rights are there to get or avoid certain results. If the results are bad, one option is to change rights.

The real question is if the results are worse than if those rights were not there. Even if you think it would be better if an exception to property rights was made to ban drugs in order to decrease the rate that they are consumed, exceptions to a right beget more exceptions, some of which could personally harm you. For example, there are parallels between the arguments for banning drugs and the arguments for banning firearms, so if I want to own a firearm but do not care for drugs, I could ally with people who want the freedom to consume drugs under the banner of respecting property rights.

The real question is if the results are worse than if those rights were not there.

I am totally certain that a society where 80% use fentanyl is grossly dysfunctional. The more fentanyl use you have, the more dysfunctional it gets. You'd be living in a shithole. The roads would be very bad, the medical system would be very bad, housing would be very bad. And where is the food coming from? What kind of industry goes on there - not very much aside from the production of fentanyl I'd expect. What kind of cultural life goes on there? Not a very well-developed one. Are the fentanyl addicts working together to make well-coordinated, long-term projects like computer games or book publishing industries?

The most plausible way such a society could exist is parasitically relying upon some more functional civilization, like your average US inner city drug precinct in the 1990s.

Why would good, sober people stick around providing services to drug addicts who then steal from their vehicles or break into their homes looking for something to sell? Even liberal-leaning, wishy-washy women are coming around to the 'hang them' solution, publicly on twitter.

https://twitter.com/michelletandler/status/1645067621191286784

I don't even live in such a society, dysfunction is not stressing me out night and day.

firearms

Firearms don't cause significant social harms in and of themselves and have many redeeming characteristics. Drugs can't help you overthrow an authoritarian govt, quite the opposite. I've still not read Brave New World but drug use was one of their foremost means of social control, of pacifying the masses.

I am totally certain that a society where 80% use fentanyl is grossly dysfunctional. The more fentanyl use you have, the more dysfunctional it gets. You'd be living in a shithole. The roads would be very bad, the medical system would be very bad, housing would be very bad. And where is the food coming from? What kind of industry goes on there - not very much aside from the production of fentanyl I'd expect. What kind of cultural life goes on there? Not a very well-developed one. Are the fentanyl addicts working together to make well-coordinated, long-term projects like computer games or book publishing industries?

Legalizing fentanyl would lead to a increase in rate of use among the population and however high it reaches, as long as property rights are enforced, people who do not want to use it can live pretty close to the way they would if it were nonexistent. There would be less workers to some extent, but those who do work would earn proportionally higher wages so it would not lead to impoverishment for us.

Why would good, sober people stick around providing services to drug addicts who then steal from their vehicles or break into their homes looking for something to sell? Even liberal-leaning, wishy-washy women are coming around to the 'hang them' solution, publicly on twitter.

I have no problem with hanging violent criminals, my point is that selling or consuming drugs is not a violent crime. There are plenty of drug users who are peaceful and for whom drug dealers provide an important service.

Firearms don't cause significant social harms in and of themselves and have many redeeming characteristics.

You are right. Perhaps alcohol would be a better comparison, you don't support banning that too do you?

You are right. Perhaps alcohol would be a better comparison, you don't support banning that too do you?

There may be health benefits from moderate consumption of wine, so I'm inclined to wait for further information. Alcoholism can be a very serious problem though - look at Russia during the 1980s and 1990s. Context is important.

Legalizing fentanyl would lead to a increase in rate of use among the population and however high it reaches, as long as property rights are enforced

But you pay a price for enforcing property rights. How many extra policemen do you need to keep people's catalytic converters from being taken? What if the police are too busy to prevent you being robbed or murdered by people who are out of their minds? In a civilized society, people shouldn't need to carry firearms to protect themselves in major urban centres.

people who do not want to use it can live pretty close to the way they would if it were nonexistent.

The lady from San Francisco begs to differ, as do those who flee from these deteriorating areas.

I have no problem with hanging violent criminals, my point is that selling or consuming drugs is not a violent crime. There are plenty of drug users who are peaceful and for whom drug dealers provide an important service.

There are drugs and there are drugs. Caffeine gives you a bit more energy but nobody is worried about people on their fifth cup of coffee going on a coffee-fuelled rampage. Certain quantities of THC can really mess you up but lesser amounts aren't too bad. I want to target people who sell serious, damaging drugs, hence my initial qualifying phrase 'Drug dealers (by which I mean fentanyl and the like) are a net malus for society,'. Biochemistry only improves with time, we need to lock things down now before we get new and worse drugs.

More comments

Something in between Fremdschämen and Vernichtungswahn.

You say that murder should be very low but at the same time you are calling for murder. For example, you are calling for the murder of some people who sell products that others want to put in their bodies. You are calling for murdering the "problem people" even though of course some of those so-called "problem people" will actually be innocent.

I guess what is probably going on is that you think that the kind of murders that you favor happening are not actually murders, they are something quite different.

You also have not mentioned any of the almost inevitable downsides of the sort of authoritarianism that would be required to implement your preferred policies. Is it that you did not bother to mention any, or is it that you do not see them as downsides?

I mean, can't we maybe... do a better job of preventing murders and rapes and so on without turning into an authoritarian shithole? I do not see why it would be impossible to have both strong liberalism and low violent crime. That the United States is not doing a good job of it does not mean that it is not possible.

For example, you are calling for the murder of some people who sell products that others want to put in their bodies.

This subset of the population has very negative externalities. If you don't do anything about them, they undermine the whole country. See Mexico or other narco-states. And they commit a hell of a lot of violence as well.

You are calling for murdering the "problem people" even though of course some of those so-called "problem people" will actually be innocent.

Yes, mistakes happen. In the long run, fewer innocent people will die. If we don't get rid of the problem people, they'll keep killing harassing and immiserating innocent people.

I mean, can't we maybe... do a better job of preventing murders and rapes and so on without turning into an authoritarian shithole?

How would you do this? Would you have 24/7 surveillance on everyone, as opposed to focusing just on the bad people? Put police everywhere? Give the homeless people houses (creating the mother of all perverse incentives, amongst other things)? Would you take a leaf out of Britain's book and confiscate all the weapons until they're stabbing people with knives (and then try to get rid of the knives)?

The US is already an authoritarian shithole. They've got hardware level surveillance on every modern processor and I'm willing to bet Windows 10 is riddled with spyware. People are getting their lives wrecked because they dared to have sex with a friend at work, there's a government-legislated apparatus that exists to suppress these people. Another government apparatus does the same thing, siccing lawyers on anyone who says anything negative about favoured groups like blacks or women: https://betonit.substack.com/p/lawsuits-are-the-deep-state

What downside of authoritarianism isn't yet present? It's already very difficult to recruit for US police because they're so jumpy and nervous. I've seen videos where they just randomly shoot people, one guy who popped his head out of an overturned vehicle. There's already persecution of whistleblowers of aforementioned thoughtless wars, there's already suppression of political dissidents like Trump. Payment processors are encouraged to suppress people in a coordinated fashion, presumably by some govt-coordinated mechanism.

If you're going to be an authoritarian shithole, you might at least reduce crime.

This subset of the population has very negative externalities. If you don't do anything about them, they undermine the whole country. See Mexico or other narco-states. And they commit a hell of a lot of violence as well.

A lot of this results from the fact that these drugs being illegal causes them to be tremendously profitable to manufacture and distribute. There are no cartels fighting each other in the streets over the right to distribute alcohol.

...the rest of your comment...

Yes, the US is already authoritarian in many ways but it is also extremely free in many ways. For example, on the one hand a person can go to jail just for manufacturing LSD. That's really authoritarian. On the other hand, the US has the world's finest free speech protections as far as I can tell. That's really liberal.

The US would become significantly more authoritarian if we followed your ideas about how to reduce crime.

The approach that I favor is to significantly increase police funding and to use the money to improve the standards of police work. For example, I would pay police more so that I could hire a higher standard of person and so that the hires would be more incentivized to do things right rather than to cut corners. At the same time, I would completely legalize all recreational drugs except maybe a few rare ones like fentanyl that are so concentrated that they can essentially be used as weapons. This would free up police resources - maybe not immediately, since there would likely be a spike of drug-fueled asocial behavior following legalization - but eventually, as those drug users who truly could not handle their shit without being asocial would get taken off the streets. I would have more cops patrolling the streets. I would also create special tent city areas for homeless people on the peripheries of cities and provide them with police and medical services, while at the same time using police to crack down on stuff like aggressive panhandling and making a mess on the sidewalk everywhere else.

Someone posted a while back that justice really should be two tiered. You have your normal clearly criminal street criminals whom you should deal with harshly. Then you have your more normal member of society. This person should receive the Blackstone Formula benefit.

That is why I strongly support three strike laws.

That is why I strongly support three strike laws.

I can only barely make out the reasoning for opposition to them. Every time I hear someone complaining about them and they provide an example, it's that the third felony was supposedly too minor to warrant harsh punishment, and I find that I'm just baffled by the reasoning here. There was a story floating around on Twitter recently where someone driving a stolen car recklessly struck another vehicle, killing the innocent driver in the process. During sentencing, he said something to the effect of, "I'm going to jail for life for a car accident?" and that seemed like the perfect encapsulation of the mentality opposition to three strike laws, this sense of grievance that people someone manage to hold after doing everything wrong and fucking with innocent people constantly.

Yeah. Normal productive people don’t find themselves in three situations where even one is BS.

Well, for example, the original CA three strikes law required that a defendant with two or more previous serious or violent felony convictions had to receive a 25-life sentence for any new felony conviction. Any felony could include such crimes as a theft of an item valued at over $400 or possession of more than an ounce of marijuana. Even if you are OK with that, surely you can can imagine why some people might not be, including a majority of CA voters, who subsequently changed the law so that the third offense must be a serious felony.

No, I can’t. First off, nobody forced him to commit those first two crimes. In my preferred system, he wouldn’t have been out and about after the first one, let alone the second, so he shouldn’t even have been in the position to commit that third felony in the first place. Secondly, let’s say you have a guy who has committed two armed carjackings. That’s a guy who, if given the opportunity and enough time, will commit a third armed carjacking. Or some other serious crime. Carjacking is not something that any normal, functional person would ever do to another person even once, let alone twice.

So, do you want to wait until after he has violently carjacked a third person - or, hell, graduated to an even more horrible and traumatizing and destructive crime - or do you want to jump on the chance to get rid of him when he has done something less horrible, and save some poor individual having their life ruined before we can finally say, “Alright, D’Quandre, we’ve given you enough chances to act like a human.”

This is my fundamental issue with progressive/liberal theories of crime: they are utterly allergic to thinking probabilistically. The mainstream consensus in the Western world is so infected with the braindead Christian focus on forgiveness that they can’t wrap their heads around the idea that you can accurately and reliably predict people’s future behavior based on their past behavior. Of course, people can readily accept this idea in nearly every other walk of life, but when it comes to criminal justice suddenly they are determined to pretend that it’s some horrible delusional idea. Minority Report and the idea of “pre-crime” gets thrown around as if it’s some knock-down argument against dealing with very obviously dangerous and impossible-to-live-around individuals before they are able to ruin even more lives than they already have.

Me personally? If you’ve already committed a serious violent felony, done your time in prison for it, and then you so much as jaywalk, that’s society’s perfect chance to execute you and I won’t miss you one bit.

This is my fundamental issue with progressive/liberal theories of crime: they are utterly allergic to thinking probabilistically.

In this particular case, is it not the opposite? Individuals generally do indeed age out of violent crime, so treating all third time offenders as likely to be a threat, regardless of their current crime, does not seem to me to be thinking probablistically at all. At the very least, it is not a matter of not thinking probabilistically, but rather where to draw re what level of probability is sufficient.

you can accurately and reliably predict people’s future behavior based on their past behavior.

Again, how accurately? Esp without taking into account other predictors of future behavior, such as age, the precise nature of the previous and current crime, etc?

if it’s some knock-down argument against dealing with very obviously dangerous and impossible-to-live-around individuals

Again, the point is that the original iteration of the law gave 25-life sentences to people who were not very obviously dangerous.

I understand that your personal opinion is to err on the side of public safety versus erring on the side of individual liberty. But can you really not understand why some people might disagree and weigh those interests differently?

Do you have any evidence that a significant portion of the people being imprisoned as a result of three-strikes laws had committed only three totally innocuous offenses? (Keep in mind that I do not consider drug possession an innocuous offense.) I’m not asking as a gotcha: I’m open to the possibility that this was happening more often than I assume.

More comments

Carjacking is not something that any normal, functional person would ever do to another person even once, let alone twice.

But having over an ounce of marijuana is.

If you’ve already committed a serious violent felony,

Three strike laws are not always limited to serious violent felonies.

Dude… how hard is it not to commit crimes? I’m dead serious. I’m in my early thirties and have never gotten so much as a traffic ticket!

More comments

The problem with that of course is the incentives it creates. If a tiny crime will get you executed, abd people commit tiny crimes all the time, then why reform? Why even try?

Its already tough for ex cons to get jobs and go straight. If you're going to follow your idea then don't even let them out in the first place. Just take rehabilitation off the table entirely. But i don't think there is the appetite for that.

infected with the braindead Christian focus on forgiveness that they can’t wrap their heads around the idea that you can accurately and reliably predict people’s future behavior based

Huh? Evangelicals support harsher punishments overall

christianity as it was originally intended and christianity as was traditionally understood in societies since shortly after becoming the state religion of the roman empire are two very different things. you can't govern a society around a religion that is based around the idea that the world is ending soon, hence the corruption was inevitable.

That’s because Evangelicals like Christians in general believe in forgiveness for those who accept their faith and offer sincere repentance. The progressive frame instead views all wrongs as caused by structural issues in society. Thus absolving all sins (except those that reinforce the structural issues like racism, etc.). These people were failed by society and therefore deserve as many chances as it takes; as long, they aren’t part of the oppressor class.

Not giving someone welfare isn't the same as releasing criminals from prison (let alone when they're clearly a career criminal). Having your soldiers kill the wrong people overseas in fundamentally ill-conceived ventures is also very bad but ties into a large and complex problem with thoughtless foreign policy.

I mean, I don't think it really is. Both, after all, are government provided 'services'; and I don't think it's the perpetration of the war crimes that a hypothetical person who use as evidence of the depravity of conservatives but rather their lenient treatment. Of course when conducting a war the political leaders can't be blamed for a soldier doing something awful, but he can be blamed for pardoning that man.

If people simply appeal to the 'better ten guilty go free than one innocent be imprisoned' platitude forever, what is to stop the richest cities in the world turning into uncivilized eyesores?

The 'better ten guilty to free than one innocent be imprisoned' notion far precedes the richest cities in the world becoming uncivilised eyesores. If people in past times managed to have nice cities while still believing in this principle must we really do away with it if we want nice cities now?

There's a lot of nuance in 'belief'. You can believe in God and go to church every Sunday or you can believe in God and dedicate your whole life to holy war. I think in the past people had a certain level of implicit understanding that they just had to get rid of the problem people - hence they acted outside the law from time to time. There was a certain formal level on which the presumption of innocence worked as is formally described but there was an informal level too. The informal level is gone now, along with old-style community institutions in urban areas. So now we're just left with the formal level which never quite worked properly alone and certainly doesn't now it's been intensively defanged. Miranda rights for instance, amongst other innovations the US has introduced that benefit criminals. The US emphasis upon avoiding innocents being imprisoned has increased markedly, so fewer criminals are arrested. Or consider Sailer's conclusion that black exuberance has increased as a result of policing being scaled down following the racial reckoning of 2020, resulting in markedly higher crime and driving deaths.

Have people actually watched the ad? Here it is. People claiming that this ad is racist seem to be making a fully general argument that ever bringing up a crime committed by a black man in a political context is racist, full stop, no exceptions. The verbiage used isn't inflammatory, the photos are simply of Bush, Dukakis, and the murderer. The facts presented all seem to be basically accurate. The policy seems to be the most unambiguous example possible of a soft-on-crime policy that led directly to a brutal rape and murder. I have no idea how you could make the point the ad is making without it being "racist" from the people lobbing that accusation.

The argument was not so much about the ad per se, but about the entirety of the campaign re the issue. See the quotes in the article linked by OP.

The op has been wiped, do you still have the link?

I think the part that the objections mostly focused on was his renaming by those who sought to make political capital out of it (which I'm not saying it was wrong of them to do) to 'Willie' which supposedly he was never called, which the objections suggested was to give him a stereotypically 'black' name.

As someone who remembers the ad - you can certainly argue that it's not literally "racist" to state facts and show a picture of the criminal. But I think you'd have to be very naive, or disingenuous, to claim that they did not carefully select that particular crime and that particular criminal for its obvious valences, or that no one involved in the campaign gave any thought to what was being signaled.

Was it powerful? Was it effective? Was there a legitimate argument being made about soft-on-crime policies? Sure. But let's be real here, you can argue that the racial messaging was on point, but you can't argue that it wasn't intentional.

  • -11

This is like the reverse Chinese robber fallacy. People often care about heinous crimes. Black people are more likely to commit heinous crimes in the US and when it comes to rape are very much more likely to rape victims outside of their race (even after accounting for population sizes).

Picking someone that looks like Horton was very likely to happen if it was random. Suggesting therefore that there was something racist or intentional about selecting Horton confuses something that has racial valiance with racism.

One of the youtube commenters claims "There has been a serious rewrite of history. This ad was only run in New Hampshire, on cable, a couple of times. Yet it is shown in history classes as "the infamous Willie Horton ad. The real Willie Horton ad, which was also denounced as racist, did not show a picture of Horton or mention his race." Do you remember if that's true or not?

Obviously the makers of the ad weren't "not seeing color". But racial messaging could mean "be racist! hate black people" ... or racial messaging could be "there's a crime problem, perpetrators are disproportionately black, a desire to be anti-racist is preventing the left from solving the crime problem, and it won't stop us".

One of the youtube commenters claims "There has been a serious rewrite of history. This ad was only run in New Hampshire, on cable, a couple of times. Yet it is shown in history classes as "the infamous Willie Horton ad. The real Willie Horton ad, which was also denounced as racist, did not show a picture of Horton or mention his race." Do you remember if that's true or not?

I won't swear to it (memories of things you might or might not have seen on TV 35 years ago being what they are), but I think I recall actually seeing this ad (and I did not live anywhere near New Hampshire).

I would be very curious to know which "history classes" show that ad.

But I think you'd have to be very naive, or disingenuous, to claim that they did not carefully select that particular crime and that particular criminal for its obvious valences

Is that crime somehow out of the ordinary? If we assume that black and white people in MA were about as likely as their counterparts elsewhere in the U.S. to be criminals, I don't think the Bush team would have had to try very hard to select a murder with a black perpetrator in 1988.

Famously, between 1980 and 2008 52.5% of all murder offenders nation-wide were black. Thus, if the Bush team wanted to spotlight an American murder and picked one at random, the perpetrator would be black slightly more than half the time. As MA was only 5% black (pdf warning) compared to the national population's 12% (pdf warning), that would make appx. 22% of all MA murderers black unless either my math is wrong or there was some factor which made the population of MA murderers not representative of national trends.

Thus, Bush would have had to work harder than flipping a coin to find a MA murderer who was black, but 1-in-4.5 is still not particularly bad odds.

But I think you'd have to be very naive, or disingenuous, to claim that they did not carefully select that particular crime and that particular criminal for its obvious valences, or that no one involved in the campaign gave any thought to what was being signaled.

I think there's two different questions getting blurred, here. I'm very skeptical that Lee Atwater, of all people, overlooked the racial implications. But I'm also very skeptical that Lee Atwater, of all people, would have overlooked a case where an opponent's tremendously controversial policy decisions (Dukakis had pocket veto'd a bill specifically meant to stop furloughs like the one Horton received!) had lead to a murderer going on a raping and stabbing vacation from jail, had it turned out that the murderer and rapist looked like Charlie Manson instead. I'm not even sure Atwater would have refused to include a picture.

And it's not like there was some wide universe where the Bush campaign carefully selected the worst one. Horton wasn't the only LWOP murderer to get furloughs, but there had been a total of 11 first-degree murderers to escape during a furlough as of 1988. While Horton wasn't the only noteworthy escapee, I can't find anything from the others talking about shoot-outs with police, nevermind the rape and stabbing.

One point that the Marshall Campaign makes out is that the ad works because Horton looks scary. Which is true. And that he looks scary due to certain African features -- in particular the wild beard and the Afro. And this is true. And that therefore people are scared because he's black and that's racist. And that's making an insane leap. But in an environment as hair-trigger about racism as todays, there's no way to get that point across.

So, doing some more reading on the matter, I bumped into this 2015 article from the Marshall Project. I strongly recommend a quick read of this, it's just a perfect example of the more rehabilitation-minded approach to always finding the good in someone, even if that someone repeatedly demonstrated that they're the dregs of humanity and should definitely have been executed decades ago (from my perspective, as someone that favors retributive justice and public safety as the dual mandates of a proper criminal justice system).

Dukakis' running mate, Jesse Jackson

Dukakis' running mate was Lloyd Bentsen.

  1. Empathy doesn’t scale because it is clearly a case where local knowledge and prudence is needed to prevent it getting out of hand. In marriages, that role is generally the father.

  2. I too would support repealing female suffrage. But I wouldn’t stop there. Only men that own real property or have kids should be able to vote (skin in the game).

Only men that own real property or have kids should be able to vote (skin in the game).

Anyone capable of being arrested, paying taxes, or otherwise being subject to regulation (or even being drafted into the military) has skin in the game.

Back when the franchise was restricted to landowners, the government was a lot smaller and not an overwhelming presence in people's lives.

Yes and hopefully it goes back to that (ie maybe there was a correlation between limited franchise and limited government)

Apartheid S Africa had a very limited franchise and didn’t have a notably small government.

Perhaps but is there more or less government today in SA? Probably depends. SA arguably is worse off for everyone today

Dunno. Apartheid SA was probably more tyrannical, but had less bureaucracy.

I don’t think constantly checking peoples id cards counts as less bureaucracy. I guess it counts for the whites that would never be checked, but for the Coloureds and Bantus it mattered a lot.

Back when the franchise was restricted to landowners, the government was a lot smaller and not an overwhelming presence in people's lives.

Back when the franchise in the US was restricted to landowners, the government was enforcing slavery, which is the least libertarian policy imaginable. And 9 out of the original 13 States had established religion, which is a pretty overwhelming presence in people's lives in a society where most people actually believed in their own religion.

What are the current social pathologies afflicting the West, particular America?

Homelessness, drug addiction, mental illness , which go together. Singapore has the right idea but we need to extend it to users too. Its a supply and demand problem, just tackling the supply is not enough.

The solution is quite simple but will never be implemented.

This is the problem with all the 'how would you fix America' type posts. within reason, basically you cannot do anything.

Another solution is to just increase in-group bonding and sympathy production while controlling your daughters’ media consumption as a community. This is accomplished through heightened emotional events, stories, daily / weekly habits, social ties, and victim complex development. I sort of get tired of using them as an example but there really is none better for wide applications: Hasidic women are not concerned about any of the issues you brought up, because are inculcated with in-group preference due to manifold social technologies. They vote according to what the male leaders tell them to vote for, by and large, as well.

ALL - 100% - of these are traceable DIRECTLY to empathy and, hence, to women's suffrage.

So are we no longer blaming Marx and his successors for these problems? Just want to clarify, it seems like that's a sticking point for many people who agree with you. I'm totally down for that, it would make for a refreshing change, anyways.

We've had the experiment for a century: We can have a free, fair, open, educated society in which women and kids aren't threatened every time they walk a street or attend a school, or we can let women vote and participate in the workplace. But we cannot have both.

And when the inevitable slide into "only a select few men get the right to control society" happens, how confident are you that they won't just fuck you over anyways? Or are you banking on the equivalent of being on the central planning committee?

The solution is quite simple but will never be implemented.

That's what many others have said. But I get the feeling that you, like them, won't be around when the problems come up again and we start looking for answers and apologies.

Marx

Well blaming the Enlightenment rather, but communism is just liberalism that's unhappy that heaven on earth hasn't been brought fast enough. So really it's just degrees of guilt.

when the inevitable slide into "only a select few men get the right to control society" happens, how confident are you that they won't just fuck you over anyways? Or are you banking on the equivalent of being on the central planning committee?

You are currently being fucked over by an organized minority, you were fucked over by an organized minority in the past, and you will be fucked over by an organized minority in the future. Humanity has never known any other system and it's dubious that an alternative is even possible given the nature of political relationships.

What your question really is, when properly translated, is "how will the new elite adhere to the myths that cemented the power of the old elite's political formula?" well it will not, because it will have different myths for a different political formula.

You are currently being fucked over by an organized minority, you were fucked over by an organized minority in the past, and you will be fucked over by an organized minority in the future. Humanity has never known any other system and it's dubious that an alternative is even possible given the nature of political relationships.

If I am, then the best option for everyone would probably be the system most open to anyone getting power. I can join the current political elite with effort, I wouldn't be able to join the OP's without so much effort as to render my life pointless.

What your question really is, when properly translated, is "how will the new elite adhere to the myths that cemented the power of the old elite's political formula?" well it will not, because it will have different myths for a different political formula.

It's hardly a myth that suffrage was not the default state of all men. The ultimate goal of the OP is to argue that we are better off restricting some people from having political power. But why stop at sex? There are many men who are incapable of being good rulers as well, equally responsible for supporting the "social pathologies" listed in the OP. So what's going to stop the reversion to an oligarchy or monarchy? Because there's always going to be some argument over who counts as virtuous or not.

"This far and no further!" sounds nice, but a man can no more control the slippery slope than he can command the tides to recede.

If I am, then the best option for everyone would probably be the system most open to anyone getting power.

Congratulations, you are now a proponent of warlordism and a fierce opponent of liberal democracy. Or perhaps you misunderstand the types of regime that make power most accessible.

I can join the current political elite with effort

You can do that in any regime, and if you can't that means it's not long for this world. I suspect that OP's patriarchy, like all patriarchies, would have a nontrivial contingent of female elites, nominally recognized or not.

It's hardly a myth that suffrage was not the default state of all men.

Quite so, but it is a myth that insofar as it is the default state of all men, it matters in the slightest to the political object.

The idea of vote as a matter of importance, a natural right, a lynchpin of your power over your masters and the righteousness of their establishment. All mythology. Mythology on the same level of absurdity as the divine right of kings, I might add.

Arguably of an even worse caliber since, as De Jouvenel points out, its potency has managed to summon levels of control and tyranny undreamt by any king.

You don't elect representatives friend, representatives have themselves elected by you.

why stop at sex?

Indeed, why have the pretense of suffrage at all, why even acknowledge the rituals of a previous political class? Nay, let's have new rituals instead. Tis always so.

You might as well ask a Bolshevik whether they'd stop at taking the property of the Tsar. Or indeed a democrat whether they'll

There are many men who are incapable of being good rulers as well

Indeed, and by the cruel mercy of God, the many never rule the few.

So what's going to stop the reversion to an oligarchy or monarchy?

Nothing, except that the latter doesn't exist and the former is the only regime that has ever existed.

"This far and no further!" sounds nice, but a man can no more control the slippery slope than he can command the tides to recede.

Quite and this is why naive conservatism is a futile position. However build a new sand castle upon the ruins wrought by the tide, that he can. In fact that's probably the only thing that can ever be done, in a sense.

Congratulations, you are now a proponent of warlordism and a fierce opponent of liberal democracy. Or perhaps you misunderstand the types of regime that make power most accessible.

No? Warlords don't allow people to obtain power, they would work to ensure that theirs was the only one.

In contrast, Apple cannot prevent Google from releasing phones and trying to break Apple's share of the smartphone market. This is a consequence of our decidedly not-warlord society.

You can do that in any regime, and if you can't that means it's not long for this world.

Under a feudal system, my right to weapons that can easily threaten people would probably be taken away to ensure the power of the rulers. There's a reason people say that Sam Colt made men equal. Despite this, feudalism lasted quite a while.

You don't elect representatives friend, representatives have themselves elected by you.

How so? Nothing stops me from, in theory, running a popular candidate who isn't part of the dominant clique and unseating the existing representative.

Indeed, and by the cruel mercy of God, the many never rule the few.

You're banking on coin flips as to who is going to be on top. Let's hope you're good at predicting the outcomes of those flips.

Quite and this is why naive conservatism is a futile position. However build a new sand castle upon the ruins wrought by the tide, that he can. In fact that's probably the only thing that can ever be done, in a sense.

Or, you know, we could just...not. Like, as much value there is to be had in demolishing a society to rebuild it in your own image, the constant fights over precisely this are wasteful and disastrous. There's an existing system under which you can get away with a great deal. The grander your expectations, the more effort you require, but that's how it's always been, yes?

Warlords don't allow people to obtain power, they would work to ensure that theirs was the only one.

Warlords and their clique are people, are they not? Sure they seek to monopolize, but that is the nature of power. Power is never shared. And in a national democratic system it is not either, and the ruling elite is smaller than the combined cliques of a dozen warlord provinces.

Apple cannot prevent Google from releasing phones and trying to break Apple's share of the smartphone market. This is a consequence of our decidedly not-warlord society.

All that it means is that they fought and lost. Because they are not sovereign, and don't actually decide who is allowed to make smartphones. Yet they still do so under the authorization of somebody. If USG decided to hand a monopoly to Apple, they could have, but they did not because corporate power is a castle that has to be maintained in constant flux so as to not compete with the castles of the managerial sovereigns. They very well might have handed such an honor if Apple was significantly more willing to play ball with surveillance than Google.

Under a feudal system, my right to weapons that can easily threaten people would probably be taken away to ensure the power of the rulers. There's a reason people say that Sam Colt made men equal. Despite this, feudalism lasted quite a while.

Then you're not an elite. The feudal system had quite a lot of men-at-arms and knighthoods for specific kinds of expertise. Yes the ruling elite has the power to exclude you if they consider you too dangerous, however unwise it is to do so. They hold this power in any regime.

Ask Trump how he feels about it.

How so? Nothing stops me from, in theory, running a popular candidate who isn't part of the dominant clique and unseating the existing representative.

And yet everything does stop you, in practice. Because the myth that you are told about how democracy works is not the practical reality. Without large amounts of support from existing institutions or alternate ones, competition is impossible.

Consider all these studies that have been made that show that the will of constituants has insignificant influence on a politician's conduct in office compared to the will of his donors. Consider how deeply unpopular politicians still remain part of a system that should exclude them if it worked they way you think. Consider again, how most of the levers of power are not actually in the hands of any elected body but within an entrenched administration that only answers to the politicians in theory.

Even if you did manage to get elected in a fluke, you'd still hold no power. Because just because it says people should do your bidding on paper doesn't mean jack shit. I point yet again to Trump and his generals who should really be in prison for disobeying his direct legal orders if the system worked anything close to the way you think. But it doesn't.

You're banking on coin flips as to who is going to be on top. Let's hope you're good at predicting the outcomes of those flips.

I am not. The few ruling the many is a sociological law of the universe that has never been broken. It is true even in a mob.

I did not say that I would like the few in question, or that replacing fews that I don't like wasn't risky. But you either convince them to give you what you want or forcibly replace them with more amenable people, there is no third way.

as much value there is to be had in demolishing a society to rebuild it in your own image, the constant fights over precisely this are wasteful and disastrous

The current elite is so deeply incompetent and unable to integrate the people who would vouge for my preferred agenda that confrontation is inevitable. Most of the very reasonable things that I and a lot of others want are impossible without a coup and secession has been made deeply illegal. In this situation there is no choice.

Warlords and their clique are people, are they not? Sure they seek to monopolize, but that is the nature of power. Power is never shared. And in a national democratic system it is not either, and the ruling elite is smaller than the combined cliques of a dozen warlord provinces.

The point is that under liberal democracy, there are different freedoms and powers one has/can get that, in my view, stack up to favor it over warlordism.

Consider all these studies that have been made that show that the will of constituants has insignificant influence on a politician's conduct in office compared to the will of his donors. Consider how deeply unpopular politicians still remain part of a system that should exclude them if it worked they way you think.

Politicians vote how they want on issues that society doesn't consider salient. If it's very visible and watched over, they vote how their constituents want. They also work to help their own supporters with working with the government. This is broadly known by everyone, no myths required.

The current elite is so deeply incompetent and unable to integrate the people who would vouge for my preferred agenda that confrontation is inevitable. Most of the very reasonable things that I want are impossible without a coup and secession has been made deeply illegal. In this situation there is no choice.

What exactly are you asking for that is "very reasonable", and by whose standard?

The point is that under liberal democracy, there are different freedoms and powers one has/can get that, in my view, stack up to favor it over warlordism.

And I think those are fictitious and mythical because in practice there never is or was anything such as the separation of powers.

Politicians vote how they want on issues that society doesn't consider salient. If it's very visible and watched over, they vote how their constituents want. They also work to help their own supporters with working with the government. This is broadly known by everyone, no myths required.

Right, and what "society considers salient" magically always coincides with what the ruling class actually wants and what the media they control decide to talk about. Funny that.

I think considering democracy to be a system of justification rather than decision requires far less complexity to explain the behavior of its systems. But it is of course not compatible with believing in it being in any way special.

What exactly are you asking for that is "very reasonable", and by whose standard?

Abolishing censorship, public order being restored, the death penalty for serious crimes, the promotion of traditional family values, national sovereignty, reducing immigration to culturally manageable levels, having the economy reward the production of real goods instead of financial products.

The standard would be history I suppose. But these are all things most people in most countries want anyways in you ask them. It's not what the elite believe in however, and they can't be convinced to allow it because the underlying problems are load bearing for their power or the justification thereof, which is what really matters.

More comments

Open borders (those poor immigrants)

That is easiest to refute. Have you looked up how Poland and other European countries build walls to keep unwanted emigrants out?

Government was actually interested in keeping illegal emigrants out and was at least minimally competent so fence was build*. 186 kilometers, 400 million dollars. Construction permits, project paperwork, public investment assessment, legally required discussion, environment assessment, plan review and everything else got waived.

Illegal border crossings dropped drastically.

Poland has universal suffrage.

And it is not a fluke, Lithuania fortified border, Finland started wall construction recently from what I remember.

*unlike in case of Trump who is more interested in collecting donation to himself than in keeping illegal migrants out.

We can have a free, fair, open, educated society in which women and kids aren't threatened every time they walk a street or attend a school, or we can let women vote and participate in the workplace. But we cannot have both.

That is untrue. Poland has both, Ukraine had both before Russia started to bomb it, Czech Republic has both, Slovakia has both, Finland has both, Estonia has both, Lithuania has both... I can go on.

You get "Mean Girls" running a matriarchy - and NO matriarchy - EVER - has succeeded in all of history.

Really? Any? Ever? Really?

While I understand where you’re coming from, I will point out that America has something - a certain demographic issue - that none of the countries you named have pretty much any of. And that the exacerbation of that particular issue, which is one of the main reasons that 21st-century America cannot have nice things, is being sustained largely by women voters in this country today. And that the European countries which have spent the past decade importing that same issue - some of which are finally applying the brakes to that process, and some of which are still proceeding full steam ahead - have also done so in large part because of female political preferences.

Now, I’m not saying I necessarily favor the OP’s position. And I do appreciate you pointing out that there are at least some countries left where women are still somewhat based. (Once upon a time, not too long ago, even in America women were considered to vote more conservatively than men on a lot of issues, but a combination of factors has destroyed that forever.) Obviously I pray - not only as a straight man who would benefit immeasurably from a peaceful and happy resolution to the War of the Sexes, but also as a person who needs to live in this society - that women can be salvaged as a political presence and brought back into harmony and balance with men, and I’m perfectly fine if that doesn’t have to involve “repealing the 19th.” Still, I’m not as confident as you are that Polish women won’t catch the same mind virus that women in the rest of the industrialized world seem to have pretty much all succumbed to already.

What is this ‘certain demographic issue’ you’re darkly hinting at?

To be clear, I’m referring to having a large proportion of your population descended from the Third World. Shouldn’t have darkly hinted about it, but I figured it’d be obvious based on all of my other posts about the matter.

Ahh I've read a lot of your posts but didn't pick up on it. Interesting.

The fact that Poland supports NATO and Ukraine despite US foreign policy (pushing the gay globally) and Ukraine internal policy (electing drag dancing Zelensky) shows that there is a shift there.

They used not to accept refugees and they got in trouble with the EU for it, now they're taking in Ukrainians and theyre getting tighter and tighter with the EU and US.

There is little chance of Poland remaining Polish in these conditions.

Echoing Dag, speak plainly. Don't engage in "a certain demographic issue" weaseling here. Own your words, and if you aren't willing to come out and say "black people" or make the effort not to just be dunking on your racial outgroup, then your post is bad and unnecessary. (And you know perfectly well you're allowed to be a white nationalist here, you're just not allowed to spit on your enemies.)

Roger that, I was posting late at night right before bed and wasn’t exactly on my A game. Apologies.

Have you looked up how Poland and other European countries build walls to keep unwanted emigrants out?

Makes a change from keeping wanted emigrants in...

Or is this a case of the problems of indexicals? https://youtube.com/watch?v=wX1x7pfH8fw

Do you not think that the enfranchisement of women opened up new opportunities for men? Even if we discount the work female scientists did to advance technology and society (which admittedly wasn't huge), what about the work of male scientists who wouldn't have been scientists if women weren't in the workforce doing other more trivial work? Never mind how smart or empathetic they are, extra people means extra hands, making lighter work I thought. Which brings me to my point - I really don't think you could stop open borders if you fired half the workforce. In a few decades you could, but I doubt a modern society could make do with just its men and limited immigration for years let alone decades.

I think you are dead wrong about empathy, but I think you are being hyperbolic there for effect - human sacrifice is almost certainly more destructive for a society, likewise incest.

I really don't think you could stop open borders if you fired half the workforce.

The economy would tank and unemployment would surge, so that would take care of much of the immigration problem too. Eventually there would be a new equilibrium

A great deal of jobs provide little benefit to anyone. Administration and marketing are often negative-sum, reducing efficiency. See Scott's recent article about how some evil bioethicist made up some rules that got a bunch of people killed and wasted enormous amounts of time for very limited gains.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-from-oversight-to-overkill

Then there are the people who teach bioethics. I suffered the great misfortune of doing a university course on what I thought was philosophy of science but turned out to be bioethics. It was immensely tedious and cost me money. Much of university is wasteful or malign, university administration can be both.

Or all the regulatory approvals, environmental approval you have to do before you can build anything.

In Speer's Inside the Third Reich he makes a semi-serious joke about how he was pleased when Allied bombers blew up an archives building. Now, he thought, they could bring greater dynamism to their work. We could lose a lot of deadweight and be better off. That's before we even start cutting into all the duplicate brands of shoes or publishing of books that nobody ever reads, or the lawyers who invent laws and then work around them. Or the fast food scientists who cram more sugar into fat people, so that doctors and dieticians can work tirelessly to keep them alive. If they weren't all preventing eachother from doing their jobs, they'd have little left to do.

I think the ‘women in the workforce’ discourse overlooks something important:

The fifties were anomalous in how few women worked, and even then, 35% of married women and a majority of unmarried women worked. Now we can assume that these were mostly poorer women doing stereotypically feminine jobs(eg, seamstress).

Put that way, the discourse is about social values and what’s held up as ideal. And that’s not going to change the immigration situation that much.

Do we want women able to compete in sports with peers

No why?

Maybe we should start with building more housing.

You can’t build enough housing when you import a million or so illegal immigrants every few years not counting foreign visa holders. Every country that has this “replacement” level immigration naturally runs out of housing

Why is every anti-immigration argument like this? Just put 'immigration' next to a superficially related BAD THING and declare immigration is THE cause of the bad thing. If a few million immigrants every few years overwhelms the natural supply of housing, how on earth did the world population 10x in a few hundred years without mass homelessness? Population growth in the US is slowing, not increasing, despite immigration. And the answer is just ... they built more houses and cities and towns, farmed more food and paved more roads. Which we, physically, and economically, could easily do.

You can’t

That's quitter talk, you absolutely can build enough housing, it's just a question of if the will to do so exists and what we consider to be adequate housing.

The market has historically relied on supply and demand, not will. Are you saying you want the Gov to make commie blocks for everyone? Why not just stop the replacement migration?

I'm not saying I want anything, I'm saying that it's not a question of "can't" but "won't".

There are a few different ways to approach the problem of "insufficient houses to meet demand", ranging from building commie blocks/pods all the way to just dropping regulations and allowing shanty towns to spring up.

I really hate when someone says they can't do something when they actually mean they won't do something.

I am pretty sure that @Mer simply wants to remove existing impediments to building housing. Then, the market will take care of the problem, as it has in places like Houston.

Or, of course, government can subsidize the building of housing, thereby shifting the supply curve. No "commie blocs" needed!

The housing market is artificially constrained on the supply side. Reduce the power of local governments to block development and you’ll get more housing supply.

Sure, we can build giant Krushchevskies but that just drives up the price of single family homes not located nearby while not actually addressing America's housing problems because American housing problems are mostly not due to shortage, they're due to non-optimal distribution.

You can’t build enough housing when you import a million or so illegal immigrants every few years not counting foreign visa holders. Every country that has this “replacement” level immigration naturally runs out of housing

The US is very empty and rarely builds up. It has depopulating towns and cities. There is nothing natural about its lack of housing.

The homeless problem in US cities is not a result of a lack of housing, and framing it that way is just an effort to push policies that have little to do with homelessness.

Maybe, but I wasn't talking about homelessness.

This is complete nonsense. US population growth has been slowing for decades even with immigration, and the barriers to building more housing are all completely artificial.

We can have a free, fair, open, educated society in which women and kids aren't threatened every time they walk a street or attend a school, or we can let women vote and participate in the workplace.

Does "We" mean men, or do you think that removing women's liberties is compatible with a free society?

As for safety, I'm living in a massive, diverse, multicultural city where families can hang out safely in amazing public parks late into the night, and a hot woman can walk down the darkest, dingiest alleyway at 3 am in the morning without as much as fearing being cat-called. On the other hand, it's also a society run by rich people unprincipled enough to work with commies, whose main legitimation from the socially conservative masses is that the police will be badasses if someone does as much as play loud music too late at night in a ghetto, and even the dumbest semi-disabled old man can (and probably must) get a job sweeping leaves under the supervision of a pedantic harpy or something similarly simple in those amazing public parks.

In short, there are many social models, but there isn't one which is both free and massively restricts the freedom of 49% of the population.

I agree with you that modern society is overly empathetic, but this is a trend that goes back to the 18th century, as the intellectual classes began to promote the idea that benevolence is the ultimate virtue. It predates the decline of patriarchy and organised religion, and it's at least as notable in e.g. the upper echelons of the Catholic Church hierarchy (all-male and all-religious, more or less) as in a multi-gender corporate boardroom.

Additionally, as I recall personality psychology, the vast majority of men are about as empathetic as most women. The aggregate differences are at the margins, e.g. highly trait-disagreeable people are overwhelmingly men.

Hong Kong.

Also, I pay hardly any income tax, get good health insurance through my employer, and the price of necessities is low (but the price of "luxuries" is often absurd, as are rents due to the low supply of flat land).

Fair enough, although I live near a mosque. However, a lot of Muslims here are Indonesians and Malaysians, who are also not the kind of Muslims that people tend to worry about. The main problem is that they take up a lot of space in the park with their massive family picnics after going to the mosque, but I'd still rather have them than gangs or loud people.

To be clear, I don’t think voting is a freedom issue. Voting is a tool to create good social outcome; it is not an end upon itself.

"End in itself" and "freedom issue" are two different things, though. If you have one system where an individual can choose to vote or not, and another system where an individual has no choice (mandatory voting or mandatory non-voting) then the first is a system that gives that individual more choices (positive freedom) and doesn't stop them doing something (negative freedom).

Voting in America is an illusion of choice. Your vote doesn’t matter except for perhaps the most local of races and even then pretty unlikely.

But to me, the key takeaway about American ideas of freedom is the foundational statement of America — we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable right, that among them are the rights to life, liberty and happiness.

Shortly thereafter TJ explains that government is created to protect those rights. We settled on a democratic Republican form of government because we thought it was the best way to secure our unalienable rights; not because democratic Republican governments was an important right per se.

So if the government created a law banning you personally from voting in any election, you wouldn't consider that an abridgement of your freedoms?

Me personally, for no reason? Probably.

Revoking the franchise from some group of which I am a member(the unmarried, non veterans, whatever)? Quite possibly not.

Why do you draw the distinction?

Impartiality of the law matters even when it doesn’t particularly help you. A law like ‘only married people/veterans business owners/people with college degrees can vote’ might not be to my benefit, but it is an objective and consistent standard. On the other hand ‘only people not named hydroacetylene can vote’ is not an objective and consistent standard, it’s just formalized corruption.

More comments

Freedoms, no. Rights? Perhaps. But targeting it to an individual has a different concepts compared to class.

However, prospect theory likely suggests that once you go down a path it becomes untenable to return to status quo ante. The 16th-19th amendments were a disaster.

Freedoms, no.

Why not?

Because it doesn’t affect my ability to perform basic activities (eg buy property, choose what religion I believe in, associate with whom I want, say what I think etc).

Does "We" mean men, or do you think that removing women's liberties is compatible with a free society?

His argument is clearly that women sacrifice almost all their liberties for those two specific ones.

I'm not sure what that means. Can you provide more detail?

How much liberty do you think men would sacrifice to be able to vote and work?