site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30053 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 8, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

(I had multiple point by point paragraph answer to your comment here, but then I decided it was all pointless, repetitive bickering. Let’s just say I thought there was a lot of nitpicking in your comment, and I nitpicked back. It wasn’t funny either. Waste of our time.)

I think you’d have better luck in your search with the key words ‘retributive justice’. If punishing criminals is a goal of society , if harming defectors is moral, then the morality of the act of harming another person is dependent on that person's moral status, whether they are a victim or a defendent. Perhaps retributive justice has fallen out of fashion in your circles.

You are conflating criminal liability with criminal punishment. No one is saying that retribution is not one function of punishment. See Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 US 346 [describing "the two primary objectives of criminal punishment: retribution or deterrence."].

Perhaps retributive justice has fallen out of fashion in your circles.

As I have pointed out, it has never been "in fashion" to consider the moral worth of the victim when determining the criminal liability of the perpetrator of a crime, so this is a complete non sequitur.

You never heard the 'he deserved it' defense from a wife who killed her husband?

Not in the real world, rather than on TV. Such evidence is relevant only to show that the wife actually and reasonably feared for her life, or felt that she could not escape. It is 100% NOT admissible to show that the husband deserved it.

In theory.

In reality, if you were her lawyer, you would absolutely try to give that impression.

'He started it' and 'he deserved it' will always carry moral weight, letter of the law notwithstanding. Justice is about assigning blame, and so the victim, in my view, is also on trial.

But we are not talking about what a lawyer can get away with. We are talking about the underlying premises of the criminal justice system, to which the moral status of the victim is irrelevant.

Yes that's what the law says... so back to the question, why?

We’re not making much progress here. To conclude this discussion, it’s been alright, but it remains a mystery to me why you (forget the law) think the moral status of the victim should be irrelevant, when it clearly matters to an ordinary jury and to me, and I have given a few rationales for that instinct.

Because I, like the law, think that it is only the defendant's moral culpability that matters, and hence a defendant should not get a pass because he is lucky enough to kill a bad guy. It is a very standard approach to moral judgment. See here

Ah, interesting, and a valid answer. In that case, I resent the deontologist tyranny.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats