site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   35190 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 19, 2022

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.

33
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I was a bit unclear with the "until they're 60" line I was quoting, but I'm fully for locking that type of offender up for the rest of their natural life with no chance of parole. If I related to the victims, I would probably want blood, but there are other considerations beyond personal satisfaction. Locking him up this way ensures he's never able to harm an innocent citizen again and lowers the likelihood of him person harming the people who have to live with or guard him in prison. In a world where we could 100% verify guilt without bias, I have no issue with the death penalty, but for practical reasons I'm against it.

The others probably shouldn't be jailable offences to begin with.

How should we punish comparatively minor offenses? I think we should come down hard on crimes that don't produce a body like thievery and armed robbery since they lower trust and make people feel unsafe, even if the objective harm they have is minor compared to some white-collar crimes. Just because I don't want those people around doesn't mean I want them to face constant prison violence, though.

How should we punish comparatively minor offenses? I think we should come down hard on crimes that don't produce a body like thievery and armed robbery since they lower trust and make people feel unsafe, even if the objective harm they have is minor compared to some white-collar crimes.

None of those are minor crimes. Indeed, white collar crimes are the type that have the least intuitive reason for actually jailing them, because sullying their reputation is enough to prevent their repeat. Theft is a serious crime prone to repeating, which is why incapacitation via jailing is appropriate.

I'd presume a large part of the point of jailing white-collar criminals is to prevent first offenses.

Some split between deterrence and punishment is likely. You can see rhetorically, there is often heavy emphasis on punishment.

People bring up the discrepancy in sentencing between white collar and blue collar crimes as a flaw in the justice system all the time and I've literally never heard this counterargument. And I have no idea why, because it makes perfect sense and reading it made me do a 180 from tentatively against this apparent double standard to tentatively in favor of it.

This is one of the best compliments I've gotten on here, thanks!

The term you're looking for in the philosophy of punishment is "incapacitation"--making the criminal incapable of repeating his crime. Imprisonment gets there by putting physical separation between the criminal and his potential victims.

I'd be surprised if they didn't also cover deterrence, both general and specific?

And after 20 years they are middle-aged. Definitely not impossible to commit crimes of violence any more (and if the original crime was against a small child or an elderly person, sure, this does not apply) but if they hang around any criminal elements in an attempt to, say, get an illegal handgun or fence some goods, they are likely to just become another victim.

Yes, incapacitation no longer applies as a justification when the circumstances aren't met. Imprisonment meets the incapacitation justification for the duration of the imprisonment, but not afterwards. Capital punishment meets the incapacitation justification permanently, as can various forms of maiming in the cases of specific crimes.

If reality is a rich tapestry, philosophy often involves taking a microscopic look at one of the threads. This is one of those cases. If you're looking to make policy, you should definitely consider way more factors than whether a specific type of punishment meets a specific philosophical justification!

But then again, I have the luxury of believing in Hell. God is the retributive one, and he doesn't convict the innocent, only the state does that.

I wouldn't describe the Christian God as "retributive."

If a Christian man murders 12 Muslims and repents afterwards, does the Christian man go to Heaven while the Muslims burn in Hell? That's not "retribution" and not even "mercy", it's abominable behavior of an unjust and arbitrary tyrant.

God is also responsible for making the criminal in such a way that they would be inclined to commit heinous crimes...

How should we punish comparatively minor offenses? I think we should come down hard on crimes that don't produce a body like thievery and armed robbery since they lower trust and make people feel unsafe, even if the objective harm they have is minor compared to some white-collar crimes. Just because I don't want those people around doesn't mean I want them to face constant prison violence, though.

Well just fine the criminal, you generally wouldn’t mind if someone stole 1000$ from you and then had to return 2000$.

In case of failed serious violent crimes, maybe indeed the video game prison.

Generally speaking people steal money because they don't have any of it. You may as well just put them in prison straight away and save the court the paperwork and time.

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