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 -
I consider myself a generalist. More specifically, I try to find patterns in one part of reality which are replicated elsewhere, in order to understand reality better. I filed “criminal law” under “science” in my mind when I recognized the epistemological similarities between falsification in science and “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal laws.
My belief in “beyond a reasonable doubt” was somewhat shaken by having watched the TV series “Bull”. However, I was fairly confident that American law, by and large, gets it right. Until today, when I ran across this article on LessWrong. Basically, there are so many confounders in most experiments that actually learning something new is unlikely if the experiment is made to test one variable.
If criminal law and science are twin methods of knowing, both based on eliminating all reasonable doubt, I no longer have faith in the death penalty except in the most absolutely obvious and clear-cut of non-cherrypicked cases.
Yeah, becoming a skeptic (which happened gradually, but I think I noticed really happening around my second year of grad school) made it very hard for me to accept the death penalty, for basically the same reason. I am not opposed to it, in principle, for murder. I expect it is probably warranted in some cases of military misbehavior. But in a modern jury system? I just can't bring myself to endorse its actual implementation. We know that some innocent people get executed, and evidence that the death penalty discourages murder in other cases is too thin and dubious to support the occasional death of an innocent.
I enjoy reading insights from the various criminal lawyers who occasionally post here, because that is a job I could never do. In practical terms, I can't handle the sausage making. I'm too attached to my ideals. Sometimes this is to my benefit, but I think it makes me a poor politician, and an even worse trial attorney.
Why does the death penalty have to be about deterrence as opposed to revenge/justice? If it’s a bad enough crime, anything short of killing him feels wrong. Just let the prisoner give a short speech before hanging publicly
If it's about justice, then the state does have an interest and a right to use it. If it's about revenge, we moved from private blood feuds to having the state prosecute on our behalf for the very reason of doing away with revenge. Revenge is not proportionate and it is not just. It is the worst impulses of our nature and if we're trying to improve life for everyone, to be more civilised and rational and considerate and less stabbing each other in the eyes over a crust of bread, then we can't indulge the cruel, mean and vicious elements of human nature even if we make the state the agency to do that.
There are crimes when reported, of such cruelty and wickedness, that my immediate vindictive reaction is "so-and-so should be slowly tortured to death for this". But that's wrong, that is the mean vicious part of my nature speaking out, and so-and-so did not silence that part but indulged it, which is why they are in jail for that crime. Torturing so-and-so to death is not justice, it's wanting to be a sadist and declaring myself just.
I'm anti-death penalty and anti-abortion, for much the same reasons: the state does not have the right to declare that this life is forfeit. It's a complicated issue, and some Catholics are pro-death penalty and some, like myself, against it. I do think that the deterrent element has been shown not to work, even from an early period. Thieves and pickpockets would be operating in the crowds gathered to watch a public hanging of someone being executed for theft. People operating under a fit of passion are not contemplating "If I stab George for fucking my wife, I will be hanged". People who planned out murders tried to do so in such a way that they would not be caught. Some people were deterred, but most people took the chance of getting away with crimes.
More options
Context Copy link
It doesn't. That's just one justification sometimes given.
Sure, if we know they're guilty. I'm agreeing with the OP--too often that's not the case.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link