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 -
So I am one of those weirdos that thinks that under certain circumstances a society with just the anarcho- and no tyranny could work in a way that's superior to what we have now -- but if we are going to have anarcho-tyranny, wouldn't it be better for the anarcho-privilege to apply to the vast majority of folks who aren't out there starting shit and making everyone else's life worse, rather than the tiny minority that are a pain in the ass to the world at large?
I think Penny should be penalized -- you are correct IMO that manslaughter is appropriate under current law, based on what we've seen so far. Reduce the penalty a bit for justifiable violence, and you pretty well have what I'm suggesting. I'd personally reduce the penalty a lot for anything that looks like consentual violence, and "yelling at people and throwing trash at them on the train" would count as consent. If Neely hadn't died, in my world him and Penny would both be up on some sort of disturbing the peace misdemeanor -- and if the jury lets Penny walk for New York reasons, so be it.
Since he did in fact die, manslaughter is what it is -- this is a risk in any street fight. So maybe Penny is both a hero and guilty of manslaughter? Killing a bum doesn't make you a hero, but showing the other bums that people are willing to shut them down whatever the consequences maybe does. Pour encourager les autres and all that.
This is the big if for me.
If leading one mentally ill guy onto the chakmool and choking him to death appeases Tlaloc and cures all ills, then it was obviously worth it. We already live in omelas; making it more obvious is just owning up to it.
I just don't thing the type of people ready to throw down on the subway because the voices were too loud that day are going to be convinced by incentives; IMO they need to be cured or segragated.
But, oh fuck oh shit, there's that fucking tyranny problem you brought up AGAIN and we are institutionalizing randos like it's 1950 AGAIN.
It's that fucking lockian hobbsian all the way back to whoever was in charge of the first farming village problem AGAIN.
The Templo Mayor was a government based solution -- I am suggesting a social one.
Humans are really good at responding to social pressure, even when they are fuckin crazy.
If they aren't, they are still animals -- and the way to train animals through negative reinforcement is to make sure that the reinforcement is swift and sure -- not necessarily severe.
This is not possible for a government to do without a very resource intensive police state -- but citizens can provide it very very well, if you leave interpersonal violence on the table.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link