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 -
Over a decade ago, the BBC came out with a documentary titled How to Kill a Human Being that went into what the director believed to be the most humane and painless way to execute someone if you really wish to do so. Towards the end of the documentary, they interview someone who believes that death row criminals don’t deserve the most humane death possible because those criminals hardly offered their own victims a humane death. The documentary gives it an air of “Look, we’ve found a humane way to actually do executions, and these barbaric Americans don’t want to do that because to them, bloodthirsty cruelty is the point.”
Well, what do you know, Alabama has now actually implemented this “most humane” form of execution for the first time, and news coverage from the BBC and others have been almost exclusively negative. There’s little to no nuance, just statements that the UN and EU condemns this “particularly cruel and unusual punishment.” Where now is the context that the US is merely doing what it was previously criticized for not doing?
To be sure, the scene of thrashing does seem to be more violent than the documentary insinuated such an execution would be, but that itself appears to be because the inmate tried to forcibly hold their breath for as long as possible instead of allowing themselves to pass out from hypoxia. I wouldn’t pin the blame for voluntary thrashing on the method of execution.
What do you think? Am I wrong in reading this as just another case of “Americans can do nothing right”?
Concerns with the pain of the drugs aside, I would also just regard it as much more dignified. If you want me dead, look me in the eye and shoot me. Evading the matter and putting on a pretense of it being humane is just an absurd spectacle. It makes me think of people that are happy to eat meat from the grocery store, but think shooting a deer is barbaric. If you're completely unwilling to face what you're doing, you shouldn't do it.
If you had the choice between a method that was very messy and unpleasant for the executioner but quick and painless for the executionee, versus another that was clean and easy for the executioner but more distressing and painful to the executionee, what would you choose? Frankly, I'm on the executioner's side on this one. I just wish people were more honest about their motivations--"yeah, I don't care much if he suffers for a minute; I just don't want to have to clean his brain up off the walls".
Setting aside that this is a false dilemma for the sake of a hypothetical, I would weight those based on just how distressing something was for an executioner and how painful for the condemned. I wouldn't torture someone for the sake of it being done by a simple flip of the switch instead of being something to face. Likewise, I wouldn't force an executioner to do a ridiculous long and grim proceeding for the sake of it being easier on the condemned. But really, this isn't a choice, we already have longstanding solutions that work just fine, with firing squads and hanging being the two most obvious.
In addition to what I wrote above about wanting people to face the reality of what they're doing rather than avoid it, another element that I think is important and ignored by both pro-death and anti-death penalty advocates is that the death penalty isn't a maximal punishment, it's a cap on what the maximal punishment can be. Many people (including those on the anti-death side!) say that they wish much worse on the worst offenders, and I frankly agree with the gut reaction, but setting the maximal penalty available as putting a heavy-caliber round through someone's heart is not intended to maximize punishment, but to offer the best justice possible while retaining the dignity of the executioner and society. Anything that slips in the direction of sterilization of the proceeding or just hurting the condemned more than necessary is based on a misunderstanding or disagreement on the purpose of the death penalty.
More options
Context Copy link
There are always people with the stomach to be executioners; “society” can remain squeamish, you just need a few moderately fucked up people willing to do it, and they definitely exist.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link