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 -
It seems like there’s a distinction to be made on the basis of crimes which indicate something broken about a person and crimes which have perfectly legible motivators.
A thief, a man who commits statutory with a 16 year old(illegal in my state), a drug dealer, a serial red light runner- all of these indicate bad decision making skills, but normal people wanting to do them is not an indicator against normality. These people can be taught to behave in a civilized manner, at least potentially- it may not be something we as a society have the stomach for, but you can eventually beat or re-educate these categories of criminals.
On the other hand, normal adults don’t want to have sex with children- like actual children and not teenagers-, or do serial killing, or use hard drugs. These crimes indicate something much more severe. It’s fair to note a pedophile long after the fact in a way that noting a tax cheat isn’t.
My anecdotal experience is that, while the hard drugs part might be a decent heuristic, exceptions are common. I personally know several people who did meth regularly and later in life cleaned up and became successful professionals and raisers of families. Heroin use is common among successful musicians who are not antisocial in any serious way.
Now, of course, if I had to choose to be roommates with one of two people and I knew nothing about them other than one of them had used meth or heroin heavily at some point and the other one didn't, I would choose the non-user. Hard drug use is correlated with antisocial behavior, no doubt about it. I'm just saying that hard drug use, past or present, is not firm evidence that the person engages in seriously antisocial behavior.
Most recovered addicts of heroin, meth, or crack never become quite normal or able to fully act as adults IME, and of course I simply doubt that successful musicians are ever quite normal(although most don't do heinous crimes, either). It's fair to note recovered hard drug addicts long after the fact because normal people don't want to use those drugs, and being an addict leaves a scar on the psyche anyways.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree with your point but I'm irked by the inclusion of hard drugs in what normal people don't want. It's perfectly legible to want to do coke or molly to have a great time at a party.
Those are hard drugs now?
Like, I think wanting to do heroine indicates you're pretty far gone.
Man, I don't even know. Everyone seems to have a different definition of what is or isn't a "hard drug". Cocaine always struck me as harder than amphetamine, and that can be pretty hard on the mind and body.
Supposedly people do try heroin in "social" settings without going through the opiate cursus honorum. That's completely alien to my way of thinking, but so is carjacking.
Cocaine is complicated by Crack, which is one of the "harder" non-opiate drugs.
Normal cocaine usage is firmly in the party drug side of things, most users do a bump or two while they are at the club or whatever instead of sitting in a room with shooting up 24/7. That doesn't mean people don't get addicted and it's not dangerous (it can absolutely kill you), but I do think people's idea of the modal cocaine user and meth user are very different, and that the latter is high or withdrawing a larger percentage of the time and has a more fucked up life. Cost is also a factor here.
Crack totally different though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Cocaine has always been considered a hard drug, as far as I've ever known.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'd classify those as party drugs, not hard drugs. When I thing hard drugs I first think meth and heroin. Something you shoot up, something that makes you look like a ghoul, OD stories and killing for drug money.
Snorting meth at parties is super-fun as well.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's an extent to which I agree with this general point, but I also assume that the law was designed so the punishment fits with the alleged severity of the offense, so that really means your issue is with the law itself being too lenient?
Hmmm. I think it is wise to keep your kids away from him as a general rule, and we should assume a certain propensity for bad behavior and not really give him the benefit of the doubt...
But it is not clear that this should impact his ability to compete in a sport he's actually very good at if he's maintained good behavior since.
It has no impact on him competing - he can go compete at his local community gym - it impacts him representing his country on the largest stage possible.
Same thing, though. His punishment was carried out. Presumably his country deemed that punishment sufficient for the nature of his crimes.
What crimes are so heinous as to disqualify someone from 'representing his country,' assuming they're otherwise talented enough to hack it?
Do we agree that Michael Phelps' kerfuffle over Marijuana use doesn't invalidate his gold medal wins, nor should he be prevented from competing?
So light drug use is 'acceptable.'
I'll grant murder is beyond the pale.
I think I'd be fine with a person with a single DUI on their record representing the U.S. I'd be okay with someone convicted of 'simple' assault and battery too, assuming they had history of good behavior since then.
Sexual Assault is beyond simple assault, but I think I can be okay with someone convicted of sexual assault representing the country if it is 10 years after the fact.
Since the OP says the crime was committed
I guess I'm just left wondering how much harsher to judge when the victim is 12.
My own thoughts on the crime of rape are nuanced, because the law treats it very differently from most other crimes, and nowadays doesn't even need to prove the perp's intent to stick.
On the one hand raping a child should be punished heavily. On the other I definitely don't see the benefit of continuing to drop sanctions on the perp once their sentence is done. I'd certainly argue that every consecutive year of demonstrably good behavior is grounds for easing up on him.
"Having sex with a child forever stains your reputation such that you can never be given any position of esteem or honor ever again"
is a pretty simple rule and certainly isn't the worst way to govern these things, but preventing someone with actual skills from using those skills to their fullest extent also creates economic deadweight loss. Maybe the answer is to legally enslave him and FORCE him to play Volleyball for the country, but he has to look like he's really unhappy about it, maybe they send someone out there to hit him with electrical shocks between rounds. But oh, fielding slave athletes is also a bad look for your country.
Hmm.
I don't want to seem flippant about it, but picking an athlete to represent my country has so little effect on my daily life, or anyone's, that I simply can't find it hugely controversial that they've got some nasty history. Like I said, keep him away from kids, and that's the sum total of my concern for the situation. Most Olympians ain't kids.
I hold people who are put in positions where they exercise actual authority over others (Politicians, CEOs, and the like) or in direct positions of trust to a much higher standard in this regard.
And that is their right. I tend to fall more on the American normie side of "maybe people who fuck 12 year-olds don't need to be around".
And no, I wouldn't apply it to marijuana. I'm not sure where the line is.
We suffer this loss all the time. Plenty of people are talented. Kevin Spacey has literally been found innocent in multiple trials and will still likely not be allowed to climb back to anything like his peak status. Ryan Garcia is currently in the doghouse. Poor Kyrie Irving was suspended for moronic conspiracy theories of the sort you hear yelled in the subway, no threat to anyone. He wasn't even allowed to pay jizya at first because he was not sufficiently deferential in his apologies.
Most people don't really care about any of these things on a deep level (unless your team lost out), yet it's not in doubt that this is the status quo. We don't really need to craft some justification for it from first principles like it's novel.
None of these high status roles are pure meritocracies. There's always been a debate about just who deserves to get these benefits (enhanced by the stage and national quality of the Olympics). Perhaps the one bit of crystal clear consensus is that something like race shouldn't be a barrier. The rest is debated constantly.
Yes that's the easy rule. I somehow feel like nobody is quite prepared to apply it to every single imagineable case, however.
Yes so you see my point.
If the rule is "having sex with a 12 year old is an instant social death sentence, and maybe a literal death sentence" then there's some incentive to use this claim as a bludgeon and create false allegations.
I don't know if there's a better equilibrium achievable, but I'd perhaps like to search for it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'd be interested to see court documents to understand exactly what "no additional elements of coercion" means. Depending on context that can mean anything from 'didn't drug or threaten her life' to 'was completely unconscious at the time of the incident', and usually law and judicial contexts care about where it's enough to count as aggravating convictions. The Times summary, for however much you trust it, looks closer to the former than I'd like, especially with the "They also drank Baileys Irish Cream Liqueur together and slept on a cardboard box under a hotel stairway when they couldn’t get a room".
His defenders argue that because he was not convicted of grooming, he didn't do that, but even in the highly unlikely situation he didn't groom her in the colloquial sense, it seems very likely he fit in the text of the statute, so it's hard to pull too much data out of it. I've got... less than favorable feelings about the 'it's-ephebophilia' side of libertarian thought, but depending on the behavior this could well have flunked even that.
"Not all forms of being attracted to minors are pedophilia. If you like preteens it's called hebephilia. If you like teens it's called ephebephilia. The reason you don't hear people make this sort of distinction very often is because it kinda makes you sound like a pedophile." - Some comedian paraphrased.
Personally I'm in the "why do you call your pedophile chipper a wood chipper?" camp on the matter (at least for a case involving a 12-year-old), but even for an older teen (and even one actively sneaking out to hook up with older men) I think we need to bring back shotgun weddings. Unfortunately that's a bit of a coup complete problem and requires some major societal shifts back to enforcing social norms by both shame and force.
Marrying older teens is illegal in the Netherlands even if she’s pregnant. This isn’t Georgia(USA).
Hence it being a coup complete problem
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link