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 -
The problem here is that mass incarceration of the 'humane' variety isn't a realistic option. I mean, you can try to have a cordoned off village or facility filled with deranged schizophrenics but it won't last very long. These guys need constant supervision. If you don't want them burning things down or tormenting one another, usually the weakest and most vulnerable, then you are looking at very high costs.
Coming from a part of the Nordic world that is considered to treat their mentally ill in the most humane possible way, the system in place is constantly teetering on the edge of falling apart. It can not afford any higher ratios of mentally ill entering society. Even now there are a host of mentally ill people locked in jail for little other reason than a lack of other facilities to house them. The others are kept at facilities that house the criminally insane. The semi-functional ones are homeless. Benefitting immensely from the small scope of the homeless problem, they can be periodically checked on. If that wasn't the case the problem would get a lot worse.
Considering a Nordic country can barely handle the problem with it's relatively comfortable population, I don't see America finding any solutions.
High costs compared to the chicken feed allocated to social programs, or compared to the Pentagon budget?
Where I live there is practically no military spending. The budget issue is centered around balancing debt with all the other things people rely on, like general healthcare. We could, instead of building a new hospital, just expand the facilities for the mentally ill. But there is an obvious cost there. Personally, I would much rather take the hospital and more doctors since there is a dire need for both.
I am sure the US is in a much worse spot than where I'm from. And could benefit from trimming a lot of the fat off the Pentagon pig, but my point was that even a Nordic model state could not fit the population proportions that the US had to deal with. Simply put, there are, proportionally, too many socially unfit. I am sure there is a solution or a fix that can better the situation by a lot. But unless people are willing to sacrifice some of their own safety and quality of life, I don't see a 'humane' solution like is often imagined existing somewhere in Europe.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To note, America has a much higher mentally ill population.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link