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 -
Is it healthy to dwell so much over it everytime some city degenerate dies and the media decides to make it a “thing”? What would you or anyone else gain from this knowledge?
I don't know, I think it's illuminating to see how many people on TheMotte both loathe mentally ill homeless people so much and are so authoritarian that their desired solution to the mentally ill homeless problem is to kill them all.
At this point SneerClub might as well just shut down. TheMotte beclowns itself enough on a regular basis that outside mocking of this place is superfluous. There are some great contributors who rise above the mess, but a large part of this site is just /pol/ but with unnecessary verbosity.
Yeah, I think that a lot of folks here have been really struggling with the Problem of Evil, so to speak. There's so much mental illness and frankly broken people in the world that they want a quick easy solution, just sweep all the 'bad people' under the rug to fix it.
The problem as I see it is that there's clearly some major issues with the way we have organized modern societies, or maybe the influence of technology on us, that makes it so an increasing number of people just can't cope. They don't have meaning in their lives, and they can't seem to function well in society.
The progressive view is that we need to better our institutions and safety nets to allow for more flourishing, the conservative ideal looks to be that we just shame and punish people over and over until they act better. I think that we do need both sides, but too few people are willing to find a compromise between the two.
While it's fashionable to sneer at this today, it is not a new idea that one solution to evil is to fight it. While it's a truism in many circles that the only appropriate things to do when an unhinged mentally-ill drug-addict is acting aggressive towards you are to help them and to walk away, there are no stone tablets from God setting that out as the Truth. (or if there are, I've never heard of them).
Similarly, it is received wisdom -- but not necessarily true -- that every such problem needs a systemic solution which puts no onus on the unhinged person in question, but all of it on "society", government, or those around them to somehow fix their problems without impinging on their agency.
As for "safety nets", the name of the concept is itself deceitful. A safety net is something you fall into after screwing up, then get out of and climb up and try again. What we have today aren't so much safety nets as permanent support.
Great turn of phrase!
More options
Context Copy link
Is using a systematized solution to stop evil not fighting it?
I suppose what I'm saying is that there are many ways to fight problems. In general I favor non-violent solutions where possible, which I think is the start of where a lot of system-oriented folks get to. Our whole modern conception of agency is incredible fraught, I don't know if I can even touch that reasonably.
I agree with your point on safety nets. It's a bad term, and permanent welfare is often far worse for people. Once someone's self image becomes weak and dependent, I think it exacerbates the problem rather than solving it.
Systemizing the solution isn't what makes it "not fighting". Demanding that the solution be restricted to "helping" is what makes it "not fighting". Systematizing it does tend to make it too big to solve and removes the responsibility of anyone to solve it. The idea seems to be "to keep the homeless person from assaulting people, you must first solve drug addiction and mental illness".
This is the fundamental paradox of a massive, globally connected society. We need systems to coordinate, but humans are built to live in systems. Definitely makes for interesting discourse.
Part of this is also the nature of democracy. It's hard to win a campaign being 'tough on crime.' Generally more feel-good solutions will appeal to a broader majority, as they're far easier to justify and seem less morally fraught. Even if these types of solutions have worse outcomes overall.
Is this some kind of joke? Apart from a few ultra-left-wing cities in a short period after the death of George Floyd, essentially every politician running for election with the intention of winning claims to be tough on crime (some of them are lying, of course). This is most notoriously the case in America, but it is true in every democracy where I have been paying attention. In the UK, the "soft" end of the Overton window is that we should build fewer prisons and spend the money hiring police. (The logic being that a higher chance of being caught more than makes up for a shorter sentence, so you get more deterrence with less punishment). The Chesa Boudin recall tells us that even in San Francisco, being openly soft on crime was a political non-starter by 2022.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You missed a great opportunity for a hammock analogy there.
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