site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30407 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 New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

  • -21

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.

How many people on the TheMotte believe this? Cite me the actual comment where someone said "that their desired solution to the mentally ill homeless problem is to kill them all" and let us look at how many upvotes it got.

No, I do not want more censorship on TheMotte and I do not want to see such posts modded or such users permabanned. Although I find the opinions that I criticized to be distasteful and as you see I am comfortable saying so, I do not want to see opinions policed here.

I wouldn't call that a perfect representation since not every upvote means agreement

Indeed. I find the policy suggestion in the post maximally wrong but it is an earnest engagement with the topic and an effort post.

How could I credibly answer “no, this is a terrible tragedy, I never wanted to take someone’s life” when I’ve got a backlog of posts here saying explicitly that I believe that schizophrenic street criminals’ lives have no value whatsoever and that the world would be better if all of them were summarily rounded up and sent to gulags or executed?

34 upvotes

That poster also calls the event "a tragic and unforeseen accident."

No, Skibboleth correctly interpreted my comment. The bit about Neely’s death being a tragic and unforeseen accident is from the perspective of Dan Penny, who by all accounts did not intend to kill Neely and almost certainly does view the situation as tragic. I do not view it as tragic, and the measures I’m calling for would be neither unforeseen nor accidental.

Aw, man. Look, the world would be a better place without a lot of people. We would have more resources if we rounded up the disabled, the elderly, everyone below the bottom quartile of IQ, and all crime-causers, and executed them all. That obviously doesn't make it the right thing to do. I want to live in a society that takes care of me (and others) even if I develop a mental illness through no fault of my own.

I agree that we are at times a bit too sympathetic to troublemakers but you're about 100x too extreme in the opposite direction.

you're about 100x too extreme in the opposite direction.

I understand that, and I have no illusions that my very hardline position will be implemented. I’m anchoring the right end of the distribution of possible positions, and I recognize that the real future approach will ideally be somewhere in between mine and what we have now.

More comments

Is it accurate to summarize your post and your views by saying that your "desired solution to the mentally ill homeless problem is to kill them all"? If this is not an accurate summary, how is it it inaccurate, and what is your actual "desired solution"?

Not all of them, but a substantial portion. I would like to live under a state with the capacity, the credibility, and the sovereignty to effectively carry out this policy, with the legitimate support of the public, but given the current state of our ruling elite I would settle for mass vigilantism. Note that this is specifically about the chronically homeless, the ones who have conclusively and consistently demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to respond productively to less punitive opportunities for self-betterment. The ones with long criminal records, no recent record of employment or stable contributions to society.

More comments

I assume he’s thinking of this and related discussion. Downvoted, though I find that to be a terrible proxy for actual belief.

@zeke5123

Yep. That’s what people are saying. They are rooting to kill the mentally ill. Maybe the broader point is that mentally ill homeless people often cause trouble so sooner or later something like this will happen and reordering our society to cater to them is not smart.

That is, in fact, exactly what people are saying:

But our ex-Marine instead kills some useless homeless insane person who's a blight on everyone around him and this is a major problem? This is bizarro world where insane violent criminals get treated with 1000x the dignity of innocent families. If we can accept collateral damage in wasteful wars, we should accept collateral damage in maintaining basic standards of behaviour.

How could I credibly answer “no, this is a terrible tragedy, I never wanted to take someone’s life” when I’ve got a backlog of posts here saying explicitly that I believe that schizophrenic street criminals’ lives have no value whatsoever and that the world would be better if all of them were summarily rounded up and sent to gulags or executed?

There are only two tragedies here. One is that the hero’s getting his name dragged through the mud and facing social and legal harassment for taking out the trash. The second is that there are far too few subway vigilantes in the world, and far too many “Michael Jackson impersonators” terrorizing public spaces. The Subway Marine should be honored, just as Rooftop Koreans should be honored, and become a celebrity spokesman for the sandwich chain.

If they wanted to say "this is a tragic but inevitable consequence of our society's failures with respect to public safety and mental health" they could do that without also adding "Neely was human garbage, I'm glad he's dead, and we should do this more often." The fact that they did add that is evidence that yes, 'kill the undesirables' is within their range of acceptable policy.

What proportion of the Motte's posters does this sentiment encompass? Couldn't say - I expect most motte posters are smart enough to figure out that if you are directly asked "Do you support exterminating the homeless" the correct answer is "no" even if they privately feel different. But it's clearly a sentiment that they are happy to express in adjacent conversations and which garners largely positive internet points on this forum.

As a sort of aside, I saved a passage from the old place onto my notes without saving the author.

Although to me it’s highly exaggerated and extraordinarily blunt, it still really encapsulates the core of how I feel about this. It’s obviously a response so some context is missing but if anyone knows the author or can provide this missing context that would be cool.

From Dec 2020

“But utilitarian with regard to whom? The whole problem with utilitarianism is the presence of so-called "utility monsters", and homelessness presents a real world example. A small minority of the population wants to use drugs and shit in the street while slowly dying of medieval diseases. But every tiny bit of aid just pleases them so so much that utility calculus DEMANDS we all pay an 80% marginal tax rate to pay incompetent government contractors to build $500k hovels for these people.

Utilitarianism falls flat because each person's measure of utility is internal to their mind and not comparable to anyone else's. It's a moral system that privileges incompetent, clueless and greedy people at the expense of unassuming, conscientious people.

If it were up to me, I'd make it publicly known that the cops aren't going to lift a finger to aid anyone who hasn't paid at least $300 into the treasury this year. So the grocery stores and homeowners could just bayonet them (no reason to waste the ¢45 and noise of a bullet) and the disruptive homeless would retreat to rural areas and OD in the woods where we don't have to pay to bury them. The down on their luck homeless would stay in a shelter for a while and get back on their feet, and the town could maybe not be filled with human shit for ten minutes.

But notice how this policy isn't based on retribution. I don't hate the people being discussed here. I feel vaguely sorry for and disgusted by them. I am just aware that helping them ranges from expensive to impossible and I like holding on to my money without losing it all to taxes. Every dollar the county housing boondoggle gets is a dollar my children won't get, so bayonets it is. If the chronically homeless could somehow be profitably remediated, they would be my best friends.”

Quite right, if you pay for something you get more of it.

If they wanted to say "this is a tragic but inevitable consequence of our society's failures with respect to public safety and mental health" they could do that without also adding "Neely was human garbage, I'm glad he's dead, and we should do this more often." The fact that they did add that is evidence that yes, 'kill the undesirables' is within their range of acceptable policy.

Most homeless people aren't violent, and don't have law-enforcement records as long as your arm. Most homeless people - even the drug-addicted ones - don't get in your face and scream at you about how they're not afraid to die today, and not afraid to go to jail (insinuating that they're willing to commit acts which would either result in their death or long-term imprisonment - i.e. violent ones). Most homeless people are not schizophrenic street criminals with 40+ arrests, including multiple serious batteries and at least one attempted kidnapping. Most homeless people are just trying to get back on their feet and avoid the shame of being seen in a destitute condition. I have no problem with them, nor do I think that most Mottizens have any problem with them. So no, there's no connecting this to "homeless people" or "undesirables" writ large.

What proportion of the Motte's posters does this sentiment encompass? Couldn't say - I expect most motte posters are smart enough to figure out that if you are directly asked "Do you support exterminating the homeless" the correct answer is "no" even if they privately feel different. But it's clearly a sentiment that they are happy to express in adjacent conversations and which garners largely positive internet points on this forum.

It is a goddamn travesty that in American big cities, public spaces - including sensitive ones like public transit - have been abandoned to people who think it's their birthright to scream at, threaten, assault, batter, or otherwise harass ordinary people. Sometimes these people are obviously suffering from some species of mental defect; sometimes they are just cruel, entitled, and aggressive. Securing the public peace is literally the first responsibility of an organized state, and any state that can't or won't even do that is really no state at all. Moreover, if the state can- or will not do anything, people are justified in attempting to reclaim public areas, including by force if necessary. There is no affirmative obligation to suffer otherwise criminal harassment by others.

People who abuse public spaces in aggressive ways should be punished - not because they're inherently evil or "undesirable" (though they may also harbor genetic tendencies towards, e.g. psychosis that we would not affirmatively select for if we had the option) but because of their actions. Their punishment should not necessarily be death (i.e. no, don't just shoot annoying people on the subway), but I'm not going to categorically say that someone screaming threats shouldn't get cold-cocked (let alone someone who's assaulted or battered a stranger unprovoked), and when people get into physical fights, sometimes death results.

In such cases the death may be sad to the deceased's family and loved-ones, but it was not honorable. It was largely the result of their own bad actions, and (absent serious extenuating circumstances) was inflicted in defense of the public peace and welfare. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. It shouldn't be that hard to not scream in random strangers' faces and threaten them day after day after goddamn day. It's generally sad that their life was wasted on such shitty, harmful behavior, but on the whole society is improved for their absence.

This is not a good post.

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.

This is a bit of weakmanning.

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.

This is antagonism and writing as if you don't want a majority of themotte to participate in the discussion.

1 day ban.

This is a general warning to everyone: I just finished going through the mod-queue for the Jordan Neely post from last week. I did not ban anyone because I was over a day late to modding it, and I didn't feel like handing out 5 or 6 bans. I will be paying attention to this thread, and the general amnesty from last week will not continue.

This is a place for civil discussions. We are not here to wage the culture war. And this is not a place for you to just vent your feelings and frustrations.

@Goodguy is either lucky or unlucky in getting the first ban. If I have to do more bans they will escalate in length.

unnecessary verbosity

Bit like saying “unnecessary ice cream”. Or “unnecessary sex”.

Yeah, don’t threaten us with a good time.

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.

Or maybe crazy people just died off historically and it is the abundance that keeps the homeless alive today?

Not so much the crazy ones as the wildly-antisocial ones - there's lots of kinds of crazy that aren't nearly as disruptive, but there are benefits to getting rid of the worst, whether crazy or not:

In each generation from 1500 to 1750, between 1 and 2% of all English men were executed either by court order or extra-judicially (at the scene of the crime or while in prison). This was the height of a moral crusade by Church and State to punish the wicked so that the good may live in peace.

Meanwhile, the homicide rate fell ten-fold. Were the two trends related? In a recent paper, Henry Harpending and I argued that a little over half of the homicide decline could be explained by the high execution rate, and its steady removal of violent males from the gene pool. The rest could be partly explained by Clark-Unz selection—violent males lost out reproductively because they were increasingly marginalized in society and on the marriage market. Finally, this decline was also due to a strengthening of controls on male violence: judicial punishment (policing, penitentiaries); quasi-judicial punishment (in schools, at church, and in workplaces); and stigmatization of personal violence in popular culture.

These controls drove the decline in the homicide rate, but they also tended over time to hardwire the new behavior pattern, by hindering the ability of violent males to survive and reproduce. The last half-century has seen a dramatic relaxation of these controls but only a modest rise in the homicide rate among young men of native English origin.

This was the height of a moral crusade by Church and State to punish the wicked so that the good may live in peace.

But yet the same church says that we are supposed to suffer in this life and that we will get eternal peace in the next so this life doesn't even matter etc etc.

Eppur si muove - whatever the rhetoric, the result speaks for itself in this case.

If that is true, why are crazy people still in the gene pool period?

Our conception of 'crazy' in the modern world may just be a symptom of our worldview. Many people who have schizo-affective disorders today would probably be legitimately accepted as prophets, or being possessed by demons, or called by the gods in previous societies. And based on historic data, those 'cures' seemed to be quite effective, at least form the anecdotes that we have passed down.

Perhaps our entire frame of the problem is an impediment to solving it.

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.

While it's fashionable to sneer at this today, it is not a new idea that one solution to evil is to fight it.

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.

Is using a systematized solution to stop evil not fighting 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".

Systematizing it does tend to make it too big to solve and removes the responsibility of anyone to solve it.

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.

The idea seems to be "to keep the homeless person from assaulting people, you must first solve drug addiction and mental illness".

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.

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.

that one solution to evil is to fight it.

Great turn of phrase!

What we have today aren't so much safety nets as permanent support.

You missed a great opportunity for a hammock analogy there.

The belief that he is a “degenerate” whose death doesn't matter is founded on the assumption that he was a menace to society himself, beyond simply being a homeless subway busker. Then it matters a great deal whether the violent crimes people attribute to him actually happened or not.

This is a general pattern in the culture war that really irks me. People decide they don't like someone, then either fabricate evidence or present it in the most damning way. This happens on Reddit all the time. For example, Redditors say the executives of Norfolk Southern should be in jail because they turned East Ohio into an uninhabitable wasteland. If you point out that there is no evidence that the area is or will become uninhabitable by any reasonable definition, they downvote you, because you're challenging their conclusion.

In the case of Jordan Neely, if you think he's a degenerate because he kidnaps children, it's rather important to prove whether that's true. If Jordan Neely is a degenerate even without evidence that he kidnapped a child, then people should present the evidence for that without resorting to unproven allegations.

And don't get me started on the fact that many charges can be framed in completely different ways depending on whether you like the accused or not. For example, “he kidnapped a child” can mean anything ranging from “he snatched a random toddler off the streets and stuffed her in the trunk of his car” to “he took his fifteen-year-old son on an out-of-state family visit in contravention of the custody arrangement with his ex-wife”. When you mention “child kidnapping”, people probably instinctively think of the former, while most cases are probably more like the latter.

I am not a court of law. If harassing and scaring random people around is a regular day in someone’s life then that’s a degenerate who wouldn’t survive for long in 99% of human societies that has ever existed. I don’t have to care about the specifics of their mischiefs to come to this conclusion.

On one hand, 95% of topics here have no material benefit. The Question and Wellness threads do a little better, but really, Internet commenting is a spectator sport.

On the other, examples like the OP really do emphasize that pointlessness. Mr. Penny’s use of force may have been justified, but it’s not going to hinge on a rap sheet which he couldn’t have seen. No, this is useful only for scoring points in the larger Conversation, where everyone is trying to weaponize the halo effect to make their team look saintly. Just because the media is doing it doesn’t mean it’s a good fit for this community.

On the gripping hand…I think this is truth-seeking. It’s trivia at best, and manufacturing culture war ammunition at worst, but in the end, someone will know more true things. I don’t want to discourage that.

The complete and utter vanity of the news when seen from the longterm is why I can’t help being drawn to the good news of religion. At the very least my quibbles are echos through the ages, beginning with the first quibblings of the Christians 2000 years ago. At the most, maybe I learn something that increases my happiness, who knows?

Mr. Penny’s use of force may have been justified, but it’s not going to hinge on a rap sheet which he couldn’t have seen.

Minor nitpick and only tangential to your comment. Yes, the rap sheet can’t possibly have informed the judgment of those that were on the train. For the rest of the world that wasn’t on the train, it should adjust our priors regarding the likelihood that Neely was acting erratically and threateningly enough to warrant being subdued by three grown men.

It's probably not healthy but I am going to hear about the event a lot in the next few weeks and that breeds curiosity. I don't feel that strongly about it, but thought I might be able to get the straight easily here.

This is not enough for a top level thread comment. There is a possibility it was just posted in the wrong section, if I didn't have that uncertainty it would be a one day ban. Don't do this.

Edit:

The discussion on this topic last week had some bad posts and bad quality discussion. There was general amnesty for bad posts from that discussion, because I was late to moderating it. That will not be true for this thread. I've already handed out one ban there will be heightened scrutiny on these posts, especially if you are one of the people that received a warning in the thread from last week. If you are already on thin ice and don't trust yourself to avoid culture warring you are better off minimizing this thread and going to one of the other quality discussions taking place.

Does it matter at all? It has no effect on the situation. A raging lunatic is unpredictable. Unpredictable always implies danger. I think that is the reason this incident is not turning into second Floyd no matter how hard the anti-racist industrial complex try to make it one. Floyd was minding his own business and was not immediate danger for anyone, no one likes to be shouted on and to be on their toes by mentally ill (or drugged, or drunk) people. So it is a bit hard to find righteous indignation in the normies.

And if you are in enclosed space with someone that could potentially turn violent any second and cant disengage - engaging and restraining is the better option to protect yourself and the others.

All official NY criminal history record sites (as in ones run by the state directly) seem to charge fees for any records requests, as far as I can tell.

I don't have a primary source, but it was reported in the NY Daily News:

And he was busted in August 2015 for attempted kidnapping after he was seen dragging a 7-year-old girl down an Inwood street. He pled guilty to endangering the welfare of a child and was sentenced to four months in jail.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-possible-charges-marine-michael-jackson-impersonator-jordan-neely-20230504-plaznkv5pjbuxaqdu2tlxpieqq-story.html

I have not seen that reported in any other article about Jordan Neely, so it is possible the NY Daily News is mistaken.

It just struck me. We haven’t had a pure meta thread. What is at the core of the breakdown in America between two sides. Is it just social media boosting of traditional sports team enthusiasm in sports? And at its core team left and team right get along in person but in online like fighting each other for entertainment? Team left likes standing up a fentanyl addicted criminal as a martyr or a male swimmer in female sports to accuse those who will take the other side as racists Hitler types? And team right likes to own them. Or is there some marxists conspiracy or Christian white behind all this?

I’ll take the view that traditional status symbols still dominate day to day life. I’ll take the view that liberal rich trust fund kid is still going to date the hot brunette from Vassar. And the liberal girl will still marry the frat boy whose parents are real estate developers.

Sure I’m setting up a lot of motte and Bailey’s. Is this just a game among elites and then followed on by keyboard warriors on social media.

It's not just the US, it's the whole anglosphere and it is because of 5 eyes attempts at manipulation of information to prevent a populism that can unite the people of any Anglo country in a way that might disrupt the current status quo.

I will never dismiss comments like these because I don't have all the answers. But how could we possibly know if this was the case?

You can't know unless you are inside, and telling anyone else has a best case outcome of ending up like Snowdon, so you can't know unless you know, in which case you already know but if you don't then you won't.

Then how do you know? There must be some information out there you are basing this on besides the existence of intelligence agencies in Anglo countries.

I don't know, I suspect based on inference. The Great War On Terror and all the fabrications by various intelligence agencies to shift public opinion (The UKs involvement with the Iraq war famously being due to a fake intelligence dossier and the astroturfed media coverage to pump public opinion away from the popular anti war sentiment of the time), Snowdon leaks, twitter leaks, plus various bits of covid narrative direction mediated by intelligence agencies, such as the FBI in the US or the role of E.g., the 77th brigade in the UK, paint a picture of a dispersed intelligence apparatus that does shift narratives and have a dominant, final, say in the anglospheres mood and man on the street opinion.

With that basis influencing me to assume it's more likely than not to be intelligence agencies manipulating opinion. When I see a sudden massive set of Anglo country wide social and cultural changes being implimented and enforced from the top down with manufactured media driven consensus, my default assumption isn't that it's a bottom up phenonomenon driven by academic marxists, economic conditions, racism, people struggling for equality out of true belief in it or whatever, but that the well funded groups of people across the world hegemonic powerstructure who have a track record of doing things like this, and have plausible reasons for doing it, very wwrll might be doing it and I will need very solid evidence to update away from that. When it comes to the culture war, my null hypothesis is the 5 eyes intelligence community probably did it or influenced the start of whatever it is.

and have plausible reasons for doing it

What reasons do intelligence agencies have to promote wokeism and social division?

Edit: Just read your comment below. So you're claiming "the powers that be" are sowing division because if people were not divided into two groups arguing with one another, they would unite and overthrow them?

Yup pretty much, although not necessarily unite in totality. Just a larger populist movement is possible drawing from.all the population than half, and that if its ire is directed at government and property ownership systems instead of the other half of the population then this is something to be avoided at all costs.

I got this in the volunteer-mod queue, and rated it "Neutral" because I think you're posting in good faith.

I do not, however, think that this is especially likely; the Five Eyes are certainly extremely powerful, but I don't think they actually want an Anglosphere that's tearing itself apart. They live here, and if the Anglosphere falls their power goes away.

I can believe in them getting mindkilled by the culture war like anyone else and sticking their hands where they don't belong. I can't believe they're responsible for the whole mess.

The power of the current system ends if populist impulse is directed at it* rather than wokes, fascist right wingers, gays, trannies, conservatives, white people, brown people, jews, immigrants, Boris Johnson, trump, the EU, racism, sexism, transphobia, bigotry, the patriarchy, etc.

*current government and property right systems.

That this strategy is awful and doesn't work very well, and seems to cause more strife than may have been anticipated, doesn't preclude it from being a driving factor.

You want the core fundamental concept? It's religious morality vs oversocialized morality.

The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term “oversocialized” to describe such people. [2]

Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society’s expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society’s expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think “unclean” thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.

I'm not sure why it's "versus" religious morality. Isn't Christian morality pretty open about nobody measuring up?

Yeah, christian morality and wokism are on the same side here. Their opposite would for example be old-school liberalism, where thoughts and speech cannot be ‘unclean’ or ‘hateful’. Christians and wokes agree on the necessity of controlling all thoughts towards their non-hateful, radically egalitarian vision and oppose free speech.

Yes, that's the difference. In Christian theology, if you screw up, it's (mostly) not a big deal because Jesus. Besides, God's justice will be realized in the end, so you can sleep easy knowing that the burden of fixing all the world's problems isn't on you.

hell is not justice. infinite punishment for finite wrongdoing can not be just. no one should be sleeping easy because they think people they don't like are going to hell.

Infinite punishment for offenses against an infinite God.

If anything, the punishment of hell would fall short, due to different classes of infinity? (I think, I'm not that knowledgeable about infinites.)

Not all Christian denominations believe in an eternal hell, though admittedly most of the denominations that don't are heterodox compared to mainstream Christianity i.e. the Mormons.

everyone should go to heaven. we should have been born in heaven.

in reality, i don't have a good reason to believe that i am going anywhere except the grave when i die. i think this afterlife stuff is wishful thinking at best, but cynically its deceitful manipulation.

But I don't think Christianity considers it not a big deal in itself (hence hell), it's just able to be accepted because of Christ.

As one of the very small number of red tribers with a strong classics background, I feel it is my job to look at how history rhymes and what the common thread tells us about the why's and wherefore's.

Fortunately the classical world has lots of recorded examples of republics collapsing due to political polarization. In every case this was rooted in the political factions becoming aligned with differing economic modes; that's why the optimates and populares had a hundred years of escalating violence and the blues and greens rioted in a way that never spiraled into the multiple civil wars of the first century BC.

So, NAFTA and open borders set the stage. The '08 recession is a major catalyst in the story, and, well, that's when the polarization stuff got kicked into overdrive. Then you've got the Obama admin, which was truly incredibly bad at lowering the temperature of the room, and a red tribe that was primed to take blue tribe obliviousness as malice due to economic polarization- that's functionally what the TEA party was. Then enter Trump, who I've always said is just an American Marius- big mouthed, prone to norm busting, hyperpopulist, attached to power, disdainful of the customs of the elite, but at the end of the day his obvious skill at things that are not statesmanship does not transfer to actual governing. The red tribe mostly doesn't understand why Trump is so offensive to the blue tribe, and the blue tribe mostly doesn't understand how the reds can not be offended by him. Then Covid became a scissor scenario.

Now obviously the US isn't ancient Rome, but ancient Rome wasn't any of the myriad Greek city states that did the exact same thing, either.

The Tea Party just always felt like traditional GOP politics to me. And on Trump I think the gop understands why the left hates him and a lot of his appeal is making them lose their mind. A lot of the time it feels to me the left promotes Trump too and gets him into the news. If we were a serious people we wouldn’t play this game. The fact we aren’t a serious people makes me think most people are comfortable and the issues aren’t real economics. If the right wanted to get shit done I think it’s beyond obvious Desantis is a better a choice. If they want to drive libs crazy Trump is the better choice.

It also seems to me a lot of left elites seem disconnect from the real world. A solution to homelessness isn’t fentanyl tent cities but police enforcement and building more housing. They wouldn’t debate what a “women” is or have trans as their main issue. They would be nicer to black people but deep down have official policies with some understanding that a lot of race differences are genetic.

The left with more people in digital industries seems more disconnected than the red tribe with more people in the real world. But compared to your historical example it just feels to me a lot of todays fight is non-serious people on both sides Larping.

I think if you were to conduct a poll of self described left-leaning voters, the trans issue would fall very very low on the priority list. Twitter, the news, and an extremely loud contingent has made the trans conversation appear much larger than it really is.

Why are left-leaning politicians making such a fuss about it then?

We just had an election last fall and I don't remember any campaign materials or speeches from any left-leaning politicians, prominent or otherwise, that made a big deal about trans issues.

They don't make a big deal about them in their public campaign materials because their position on these issues is wildly unpopular -- then they get elected and apply inordinate focus to things that only impact 0.x% of the population.

I'm pretty sure this is worse?

That's the left's biggest advantage. Their politicians don't have to do or say anything. All of the policy changes are pushed by the media and civil service.

Are they? Outside of the more online younger types, I really don't think they do make that much of a fuss about it. Speaking to Britain, where while the tribes are not directly analogous or polarised there has been some spread of the American culture war, most of the Labour party, and certainly Starmer in particular, try not to talk about it at all if they can. Activist types do overemphasise it, but among, say, the median democratic state legislator I don't think it ranks very highly.

You really think the US secretary of health was selected on his merits? People are getting jail time for doing burnouts on rainbow crosswalks, head in the sand won't help you here.

US assistant secretary of health I think you mean. If your argument is that Democrats clearly rank trans issues as a high priority because they gave one sub-cabinet level post to a trans person... that's a rather low bar. Was there an 'affirmative action' element? Maybe, I have no idea (but note that with 24 cabinet secretaries and presumably at least that many assistants as well one assistant post going to a trans person hardly represents a great statistical anomaly), but even if there was it hardly proves much.

It's just an example -- there are plenty more. What about the nuclear energy/panty stealing guy? What about various bathroom bills? Like I say, head in the sand.

More comments

The Bud light guy was invited to the white house. That is a full embrace by their leader.

I agree that Biden is unambiguously on the 'pro-trans' side but that doesn't mean it's a high priority.

The trans activists send shock troops basically anywhere there is pushback, and the Democrats will generally speak in favor of it, excuse it (see the tennessee capitol storming). The courts defend it. The schools try to secretly implement it. Large associations like the APA conspire to push it. Its hard to see, other than possibly abetting illegal immigration, a CW issue the DNC prioritizes more highly.

Biden's inviting the low priorities to the White House to show they're low priority?

More comments

I have a few hypotheses:

1). Politics have become a source of identification in the twenty first century much like church denominations would have in the Christian world, Or philosophy would have in the Greek or Roman world. Thus, conflict between the “tribes” to use Scott’s terminology is much like would have happened between Catholics and Protestants in the reformation. The point wasn’t just the differences, but that this “other” by not being like you, by being a heretic, they are a threat against the good. As evidence, I’d point out things that have little to do with politics being coded for one tribe or the other. For example that blues like coffee shops or indie movies, reds like beer and action movies.

2). Political issues are touching more and more of what used to be the private sphere as state power increases. Almost every decision a person makes in the modern world has some attachment to politics. It’s everywhere, every song on the radio, every movie and TV show, sports, at work, at your kid’s school, and social media. There’s no issue that isn’t ultimately political including the food you eat, the brands you buy, whether or not you recycle, how you talk to people, what kind of religion you practice, you name it, and there’s politics. And once politics becomes that important to how people actually live, it cannot help but be really contentious. I don’t want my six year old learning about pronouns, but politicized education means that unless you’re involved vocally in politics, you can’t stop it. When you’re forced to hide your beliefs from others because they’re not inclusive enough, politics becomes more important to you.

3). The increased economic division between rich and poor makes politics more pressing. The border is a threat to the poor who struggle to make it while watching millions of people pour over the border to compete for their jobs. The hollowing out of good paying jobs from rural areas has made life harder for rural areas.

Political issues are touching more and more of what used to be the private sphere as state power increases. Almost every decision a person makes in the modern world has some attachment to politics. It’s everywhere, every song on the radio, every movie and TV show, sports, at work, at your kid’s school, and social media. There’s no issue that isn’t ultimately political including the food you eat, the brands you buy, whether or not you recycle, how you talk to people, what kind of religion you practice, you name it, and there’s politics.

I think that this one is downstream of whatever the real problem is. People turning toxic and inserting politics into everything seems to me like the symptom, not the disease. It's definitely a problem though.

I’m sort of libertarian adjacent, so my thinking is that it’s because of state power being able to reach into everything in ways that tyrants of 100 years ago could only dream of. Through the civil rights act and liability issues stemming from them, the state can force your boss (for fear of lawsuits) to insert himself into what used to be private matters between employees. You’re an ass if you’re touching women on the ass, or deliberately antagonizing LGBT people, or using the N-word as a descriptive term. But such things should be able to be handled by those involved. I’m perfectly capable, as a woman, of telling you to cut it out. I think any functioning adult should be able to politely but firmly tell the person to stop being an ass.

There’s also the technology. It used to be (pre-cellphone) that unless someone in power happened to overhear the conversation or a tattletale did, it was perfectly reasonable to ignore it. Nobody could find out what you really think about and issue unless they heard it themselves or someone tattled. Internet, cameras, and social media have changed the game, and effectively collapsed the private sphere (unless you take great pains to lock down everything and only talk freely among trusted people) meaning that now any powerful person in your life can freely judge your opinions and words even if they weren’t said to that person or anyone who knew that person. I can watch you on camera and see (and sometimes hear) if you’re doing things that indicate crime-think.

All of this power, imo turns politics into a toxic stew. When the state can dictate the ethnic and gender ratios of your staff, when they can determine if you’re doing enough to not be liable for a “toxic work environment”, and can determine which groups are more worthy of protection, this makes politics much more high stakes. And I think the same is true of the regulations around safety and health and quality and so on. When a state becomes powerful enough, everything becomes political because you can use a powerful state to get your way in whatever form that takes. The government can force educators to teach a certain way and keep secrets from parents and so on, and thus angry parents yell at the school board. It’s now politically charged.

To me, the way to depolarize it is to go back to the antiquated notion that the government is not supposed to be your parents. It’s not supposed to protect your feelings or baby proof your environment. It’s not supposed to enforce quotas or workplace behaviors. And barring really catastrophic danger, I don’t think the government should be heavily involved in safety issues. And once the government stops regulating and enforcing such things, I think the temperature on political debates goes back down. If the state isn’t going to make your business liable for every word your employees say and maybe not having enough trainings, then I don’t think it’s going to be a big deal.

To me, the way to depolarize it is to go back to the antiquated notion that the government is not supposed to be your parents. It’s not supposed to protect your feelings or baby proof your environment. It’s not supposed to enforce quotas or workplace behaviors. And barring really catastrophic danger, I don’t think the government should be heavily involved in safety issues.

I don't know if this would fix it, but damn I would love to see this. I really resent that people are trying to turn the government into my mom. Yes, I don't necessarily make the best choices (though I obviously try). But they're mine, dammit. That's the whole point of being an adult. Stop trying to get the government involved. It almost certainly doesn't know better than me, and even if it did, it's infantilizing and insulting.

I'm not convinced that Team Left and Team Right do, in fact, get along in person and simply fight online. I suspect that a significant amount of online toxicity bleeds into meat-space interactions, particularly as the unwritten rule of "Leave politics and religion out of your professional interactions" gets more and more abandoned. I think there's some polling data that shows that political differences are increasingly a dealbreaker when it comes to dating; I can't find it at the moment, though.

With regards to the core question, I think there's a few things going on. My personal theory is that with the end of the Cold War, America was no longer faced with an external threat to fight, and so ended up expending its energy on fighting each other. Mix that in with the decline of Protestant Christianity as a unifying factor and the rise of the Internet amplifying differences and killing common culture, and we end up with the situation we're in now.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/12/us/jordan-neely-daniel-penny-new-york-subway-death-charge/index.html

Daniel Penny, a 24-year old Marine, turned himself to police after being charged with 2nd degree manslaughter for the killing of Jordan Neely. It looks like I was initially wrong. I said that drugs may have played a role given that the original NYTs story, which I replied to, from a week ago said that Neely had been choked for only 2-3 minutes and released and was unresponsive. The updated story is that he was choked out for much longer, as long as 15 minutes, which would have def. been lethal, and the video is pretty bad.

So retract my original argument in which I posit drugs played a role. This is why you should always wait until you have all the information before forming an opinion. I didn't think the story would blow up like it did. I just assumed it was some random altercation. The video is why it went so viral. I think Penny is not without some guilt here. Keeping someone in a choke for so long is going to end in death. It's likely Neely was not rendered unconscious near-instantly from blood loss to the brain, such as from a sleeper hold as I assumed from the original story (I assumed Penny put Neely in a hold, and then Neely went limp in 20-30 seconds and did not come back), but far worse, had been suffocated to death, like being held underwater because his windpipe was restricted. That's why he was flailing around. It would have been more humane had Penny just shot him although that would have carried a worse charge.

A second degree manslaughter conviction is not that bad. only max 15 years for killing someone, and with parole Penny may only spend 5 years, which is a pretty lenient sentence for killing a guy, and not even in self defense or accident. By comparison, Ross Ulbricht faces multiple life sentences despite not killing anyone. I cannot say Penny is not without some blame in this matter. But In Penny's defense, the police took too long to come, and despite Marine training he and his accomplices didn't know what else to do.

Something I am still struggling with - shouldn't a Marine know how to hold/disable somebody without killing him? I know next to nothing on Marine training, but I imagine there are situations where you want to capture the enemy soldier (e.g. to interrogate him later) and there must be ways to hold somebody relatively safely to oneself without choking them to death. Am I wrong? Also, being a Marine, he should have known what a long chokehold would do to a person. Did he mean to kill the guy? If yes, did he not foresee killing a guy in public in this fashion - after he is clearly subdued already and not presenting clear and present danger - would end up in serious charges, especially in New York? How did he expect this would end up?

that's what I was thinking too. I assume 'restraining someone safely' would be covered in basic training , especially when the assailant is not armed and does not seem particularly strong

Functionally it ends up through pain compliance and this seems to be a case where that wouldn't work.

Jesus, he used a chokehold, not a glock. How much softer can you get?

We back to "de-escalation training"?

Any chokehold is the barehanded equivalent of a glock.

Theirs a reason I constantly bitch about guys who refuse to tap because they have testosterone poisoning and that refs full body throw themselves onto the ground and get within 8 inches of your face when you are getting choked, and it's because it goes from a fun sporting competition to a negligent murder in about 30 seconds.

I don't expect this dude to do a kimura or some shit, but a 15 minute choke is a bit much.

a 15 minute choke is a bit much.

And why do you think that is even possible, or happened?

You're in a match. You sink a RNC. How long can you hold it before your arms burn out? Fifteen minutes?

Yeah? Unless your rotator cuff is fucked or you are weak as shit, you can hold an rnc forever. It's the easiest hold to hold, its why getting one locked in right should be an instant tap.

You can's struggle against an rnc once it is locked in because your point of leverage is your squishy trachea area, the best you can do is try to pull their hands off their own arms get a finger loose, but if it is locked in you have shitty leverage for that also.

A lot. There are different ways to hold people. Source: 15 years of martial arts training. I don't claim I would have done better in this situation (one reason I moved from California is to reduce the chance to ever find myself in such a situation) but I know there are other ways than chocking the daylights out of a person. That's why I am wondering why he decided to do what he did.

I mean, he probably convened a meeting of ethics professors, focus grouped the results a bit, got a supreme court ruling and a blessing from the pope before confronting the maniac.

You've got fifteen years of martial arts training? What's the better control position to back control? What's the least damaging incapacitation you can do to a person?

Should he have gone for the Kimura and torn Neely's shoulder off? Snapped his elbows off backward? Or just punched him in the head repeatedly?

What's the least damaging incapacitation you can do to a person?

It's hard to answer such generics, there could be a number of ways depending on the situation. But yes, I think it'd be better even if he broke his shoulder or punched him out (though this is a risky one too - people may react wildly different to being punched, including possible fatal injuries) than killing him. If it were somewhere in deep self-defense friendly red state, then the calculation would be different, but in New York, with races being as they are, you're pretty much guaranteed very vigorous and politicized prosecution. This is also a component of safety - what happens after. Again, I am not saying I know the solution for this, it would be stupid for me not being there, not seeing it, to make any suggestions. It's just the choice that actually happened looks strange to me, and I wonder why was it made. No amount of low-effort mockery "yes, he should have filed a petition to Supreme Court!" is going to answer this. I don't expect anybody to know the answers, but maybe at least some higher effort thoughts than that.

It's hard to answer such generics

It's not, you just refuse to because the answer is obvious and inconvenient. The RNC is the lowest risk to both parties. It does not sacrifice control like an armbar, it does not require coming to striking distance like mount. Back control is bar none the best control position and the RNC is the absolute least damaging and risky option to incapacitate someone.

This is the absolute minimum force possible that produces incapacity without injury in the wild majority of cases. 99%, with decimals to ten or so places.

If the RNC is not justified, then no violence is justified. The critique of "well why didn't he try some other nonspecific technique which from the keyboard I think might have had a better result after the fact?" is ridiculous.

I mean, he probably convened a meeting of ethics professors, focus grouped the results a bit, got a supreme court ruling and a blessing from the pope before confronting the maniac.

Pretty unnecessary response imo.

I don’t especially care about this incident anymore than I care about any of the other daily killings in NYC, but even maintaining the same hold without putting the one hand behind the head (which is what causes the downward pressure on the bloodflow) would have been both easier and less lethal. Not even saying he should have done that in the situation if the guy was violent, but if all he wanted to do was restrain him (as opposed to knock him out and dip) then almost any way of holding someone other than the really specific RNC position is less lethal.

almost any way of holding someone other than the really specific RNC position is less lethal.

This is either wildly wrong or extremely pedantic. And less lethal for who exactly?

This is either wildly wrong or extremely pedantic.

…it isn’t though? Fitting your hand behind the back of somebody’s head and pushing down isn’t a natural, easy-to-fall-into movement - you might have to literally force your hand up in between their body and yours while they’re struggling - and that move is specifically what causes the blood flow to cut off. Almost every other form of back control doesn’t have that immediate risk because the RNC isn’t back control, it’s a submission. Even just take the same hand and use it to pin his arm to his body and you have a movement both less dangerous and more natural for beginners, whereas as the RNC isn’t something people know intuitively without being taught.

As for your comment about lethality, in every conversation I’d had about this event, including my comment above, I’ve very explicitly said I’m not condemning the use of lethal force, which may have literally been necessary if the guy was attacking him or somebody else on the train. I’m disagreeing with the people who are for some reason arguing that choking someone out for a long ass time doesn’t have obviously lethal potential. And if it turns out the guy wasn’t attacking anyone, for better or for worse you don’t get to knock people out just for being awful.

This is bogus.

"No, you can't carry a gun for self defense, just use martial arts"

:guy gets punched, hits head, dies:

"He should have known the risk hitting someone, he should totally have used something less damaging"

:guy gets choked, dies:

"Obviously lethal, should have used some other secret squirrel thing that only exists in the keyboard warrior's head"

:guy gets tased, dies:

" Yeah, 'less than lethal' means lethal, should have known that this could happen, deploying a taser is lethal force!"

:Guy gets pepper sprayed, dies:

"Why are people allowed to carry obviously lethal pepper spray"?

Strange how there are exactly zero responsible and reasonable uses of force, at least after the fact if something goes badly and someone dies. All the good uses of force exist.......mostly in the minds of critics.

More comments

Maybe he wanted to just knock him out as opposed to restrain him for an indeterminate amount of time?. Being so close to a Vagrant like Neely mustn't be very fun.

Yeah I was gonna say actually knocking him out and withdrawing quickly could have made sense, if the guy was attacking him at least. If you can’t land it perfectly just applying sustained pressure to the throat for a long time is dicier though. And if the guy doesn’t turn out to have attacked anyone, you can’t just knock someone out for being really awful to be around.

How do you knock someone out?

More comments

Marines are trained to kill though. That's the whole point. They're shock troops, not a police force.

You will be taught how to disable someone without killing them, but in a way that maximizes your safety and doesn't really take into account that you'll be fighting some drug ridden mentally ill lowlife but an actual enemy combattant.

Marines are trained to kill though

Yes, that's one of the things they are trained to do. But I really hope that's not the only thing they are trained to do. Knowing when it is appropriate and not appropriate to kill should have been part of it too.

but in a way that maximizes your safety and doesn't really take into account that you'll be fighting some drug ridden mentally ill lowlife but an actual enemy combattant.

How does it make any difference? I'm sure if you choke an enemy combatant for 15 minutes he'd die just as well as a mentally ill lowlife. Anybody would. That's what I don't understand - he knew what would happen and he must have had other options. Why did he choose this one?

But I really hope that's not the only thing they are trained to do

Why are you exactly hoping for this?

Because an army of mindless psychopathic murderers is a bad way to conduct wars. And releasing them into society when they're done service would be even worse.

releasing them in society when they've done service would be even worse

This is a legitimate unsolved problem.

It was already pretty hard to train people to be ready to kill and not just ready to boast at the enemy with automatic weapons. Training them back into being normal citizens is something I'm not sure to even be possible.

Not about to say the average jarhead can't be integrated back into society, but fucking with him is a deadly business and likely always will be. Doesn't matter what the law says.

Training them back into being normal citizens is something I'm not sure to even be possible.

Why not? They are not killing any person they encounter at random. They are killing who they are ordered, when they are ordered, and in a manner they are ordered. Otherwise they're not an army, they are a horde of psychos. Why would it be impossible to order them not to kill civilians?

but fucking with him is a deadly business and likely always will be

As I understand, the wacko in question did not even pose an imminent danger - certainly not to the Marine, but also not to anybody else. He disturbed the peace, was stirring shit up and was running his mouth, but he was not actively trying to murder anyone, and especially not Penny. So it's hardly "fucking with him".

Why not? They are not killing any person they encounter at random. They are killing who they are ordered, when they are ordered

Because that's not how it works in reality.

In 1947, Brigadier General S. L. A. Marshall published Men Against FIre: The Problem of Battle Command, arguably one of the most influential publications in military psychology. In it, he makes the now infamous "ratio of fire" claim that fewer than 25% of men in combat actually fired their weapons at the enemy. His figures are contested, but the finding itself has been independently reproduced by multiple studies performed by other armies over multiple centuries. And remember we are talking about men that were drilled into operating their weapons and are in mortal danger.

The reason for this remains the object of intense debate, but Marshall most definitely succeeded in convincing people to look into methods of increasing this ratio.

By 1950 and Korea the US Army had started efforts to use B. F. Skinner's newly discovered conditioning techniques to do so.

One of the most famous changes wrought by these programs was the use of human silhouette instead of bullseye targets during basic training as one such conditioning tweak. But it is also one of the least successful.

The increase in the availability of crew served weapons, which provide a sociological pressure to the individual soldier, and the widespread use of artillery which allows for the reduction of the enemy to an item on a map did a lot more to increase the ratio. All these factors and more made Korea an important learning experience for this venture and all the lessons learned would be applied to the extreme in the next war.

VIetnam would see these techniques perfected, and used with great effect.

Desensitization is of course the name of the game here, the level of bloodthirsty rhetoric and celebration of killing in a recruits training was significantly increased compared to Korea and even more significantly so compared to the world wars. Training videos and lectures full of gory details and celebration of the mutilation of the enemy were commonplace.

Conditioning was also greatly employed, to produce reaction without thought. While previously a marksmanship course would have you take a prescribed position while calmly shooting at stationary targets, a similar course for Vietnam would have you standing in a foxhole, wearing full gear, waiting anxiously for a moving target to pop up at random and only allow you a few moments to shoot. That same target producing a satisfying sound when dispatched correctly.

A great emphasis was placed on realism, they went as far as making mock Vietnamese villages complete with livestock and villagers to have the recruits patrol and do mock missions within. All to turn the destruction of the enemy into a reflex.

Of course all this conditioning comes at a cost. The mental restraints we have against killing are there for a reason, and many argue that the atrocities committed against Vietnamese civilians as well as the widespread psychatric issues associated with Vietnam vets are consequences of such conditioning.

This is all to say that the idea that destroying your fellow man as something that can be simply be turned on and off and controlled with individual reason is far from an accurate picture.

The distance between an effective soldier and what you term psychopathy is much smaller than I think you realize.

the wacko in question did not even pose an imminent danger

This is most probably what the law cares about. But you're not hearing me if you think that is what matters. Whether it is true or not.

More comments

They are of course trained for other combat activities, and to operate equipment, and survive in the field, and all sorts of other things. They are not much trained in nonlethal combat, occupation enforcement, or policing. They are not meant to be used for that purpose.

Something I am still struggling with - shouldn't a Marine know how to hold/disable somebody without killing him?

I have basically no 1st hand knowledge on the subject, but any time I hear from people who have actual knowledge of combat (e.g. mixed martial artists or law enforcement), it seems to me that humans are very fragile creatures where the line between merely stopping an oppositional person with force and killing them is extremely fine. I'm sure there are techniques that maximize the chances of someone surviving when holding/disabling them, but the chaotic nature of a physical altercation makes it so that there's a lot of variance and unpredictability in the outcome. So my thinking is that it's very possible that he tried his best to disable him without killing him but failed at that endeavor, for whatever reason. Whether that was due to reckless negligence is up to the courts to decide, I suppose.

it seems to me that humans are very fragile creatures where the line between merely stopping an oppositional person with force and killing them is extremely fine.

Put more precisely, the line between incapacitation and killing is very fine. People can stop an action of their own volition whenever they want. It's making them stop against their will that's fraught.

Speaking as someone with an extensive combat sports background, this idea that training should have helped him is highly dubious. I'm sure he was given some training, but probably never used it in real life, and hasn't kept up with it. Indeed, it probably makes things worse. He kept trying to do the thing he was trained to do, but kept getting it wrong, which is made very difficult by being in real life (not on a mat) and battling a live opponent (who also probably was giving off odors that made him less able to focus).

Yeah, the updated story isn't looking good for this dude. Sure the person he killed was not that many steps above scum, but he was still human. Good on him for turning himself in at least.

I think he might be guilty of going too far. I expect a hung jury because these cases haven’t been working in NYC.

I think the bigger question is what should we be doing with people like Neely? He’s obviously a net negative utilitarian value on society harassing people all day with a potential to have a bad moment and throw someone in front of a train.

Just locking him in a cell seems a little mean and drastically increases his suffering. My solution sounds a little like slavery where we put people on a farm with supervision. He gets to do a little work like taking off vegetables etc. But is removed from society.

with a potential to have a bad moment and throw someone in front of a train.

If memory serves, he already tried exactly that. But I can't seem to find the source and there have been a lot of rumours flying about, so take it with a grain of salt.

I've seen this claimed on twitter, but no proof. There is however a short video of a black man who pushes a woman into (not in front of) a train at a station, but I don't think it's Neely. I have a feeling that people saw this and just ran with it.

the push for de-institutionalization is partly to blame. In the past maybe he would have been committed. It's easy to find solutions to deal with overtly violent or mentally ill people, but those who are a nuisance and only occasionally act or threaten violence, but without breaking laws or physically harassing people, are harder to deal with.

Would he have been institutionalized in a non-prison? Based on his choices of victims: children and old ladies, he seems fairly sane. Just bog standard sociopathy and desire to harm humans explains this behavior pretty well.

There are tons of people who, with a cheap studio apartment could likely get by working part time hours at a McDonald's and being at least at the margin a productive-to-neutral member of society.

I think tons overstates it. A substantial portion of the unhoused cohort have already been evicted from free housing. They were unable to follow the rules for housing and many are non-compliant with their medication. They'll need more supervision than a flop house provides.

Neely ran away from a residential care facility he was placed in as part of a plea deal and there was a warrant for his arrest at the time of his killing. He's a shining example of someone who should be institutionalized, but lowering barriers to instituionalization involves complex trade offs and reasoning about them from viral news clips seems like a bad idea.

It comes up a lot in discussions of homelessness that there are lots of low visibility functional temporarily homeless people, and then a smaller number of high visibility dysfunctional long term homeless people. I briefly worked with an otherwise functional middle aged adult who had been homeless for a couple months. Cheap flophouses would be a huge benefit to people who are temporarily in between relatives with couches to crash on, but it wouldn't do much for the guys screaming on the subway.

Forensic mental health facilities are effectively prison tier secure. They are designed with multiple layered barriers between the inmate and the outside.

I have experience with the design of these facilities. In one fun example some open air courtyards are designed without 90 degree angles (think octogon rather than square) and with rotating anti-climb barriers . The reason for this is that some mental health patients are capable of ridiculous feats of strength and will attempt things that no sane person would attempt. Things like wedging themselves into a 90 degree corner of an outdoor courtyard and shimmying up 6 metres to get onto the roof.

Yes, that I can see. The people together enough to couch surf could use a flop / boarding house. Housing the Jordan Neely's with this cohort would drive them out, or pull down the marginal ones.

The cohort in tents are often in tents because of addiction or other mental health issues. They may not be as aggressive as Neely, but they're unlikely to be suitable for flop houses either.