site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   32845 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 5, 2024

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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I lost my beloved younger brother a few years ago to drug addiction. He was 35. He struggled for years (and I mean really struggled) to stop using heroin, with some periods of success. When he was using drugs, he would lie and steal. But even during those times, he was always a very generous person when he could be. He was very sensitive (in some ways, I think this was actually a burden for him), and he made friends easily. He was funny and smart (which was perhaps another burden). He had very serious depression and anxiety his entire life. I'm sure my parents will never recover from the loss.

My point here is that many of the drug addicts you despise are actually struggling desperately. Most have had difficult lives. Some have loved ones that care deeply about them and want to see them get healthy. Others don't have anyone in the world who cares about them, either because they never had a family, or because their families died, or because they alienated them through their behaviors.

There are important conversations to be had about whether drug addiction is more of a choice or more of a disease. And there are conversations to be had about the balance between community interests and the interests of those with substance abuse disorders, and how community burdens should be fairly distributed. And there are conversations about which policies or actions actually help individuals with substance abuse disorders, versus which policies are counter-productive because they just enable or encourage these disorders.

But calling someone "dysfunctional scum" or "druggie" or "biowaste" isn't the way to start these conversations. That's the kind of language people use to dehumanize others. I think you should be ashamed of yourself.

A breakdown in social order happens when ones extended charity is either repeatedly abused or actively harmful. Recalculating the benefits of extending unlimited charity have resulted in sober ssessments of 'rehabilitation' effectiveness especially when available rehabilitation resources are underutilized and ineffacious on the rare occasions they were used - see Portlands drug rehab program where no drug addicts using clean needles ended up going for rehab, and there have been no successful rehab outcomes in the program.

As much as we as social creatures wish to extend sympathy for 'there but for the grace of god go i' at a certain point we all acknowledge that some bad actors are continuing to act to the net disbenefit of everyone, no matter their sob story. In fact, the enablers are often the greatest sufferers of the bad behavior, for their internal world construction is massively tested by the evident failure present in their midst.

The usual method of mental reconciliation is simple denial, whereby enablers deny the criminality or antisocial consequences of their loved ones. This can work quite well when surplus resources exist to cushion said antisocial consequences, but breaks apart when scarce resources require justice, extralegal or otherwise. Families of criminals cry when their loved ones are incarcerated by a 'biased' justice system, but they cry at funerals when gang wars kill belligerents as well.

I used to think like you, but after enough experience with antisocial people, I ran out of fucks to give. Personally, I don't have anything against drug users, indeed I am very libertarian on that issue. For me it's not about the drugs. My attitude is, if you can do hard drugs regularly and still be a nice person, more power to you. Probably would be better to stop doing the hard drugs, but as long as you don't cause other people problems, I have nothing against it.

Basically no-one in the US is poor enough that they actually have to steal or commit violence in order just to survive. Poverty is not what is causing our crime problems. People in the US who steal or commit violence do it not because of socioeconomic factors or even necessarily because of their drug use. You can do hard drugs and still not be a thief or a violent sociopath. Obviously hard drug use does degrade the brain, but it is still the individual who decides to continue to do the drugs even if it turns them into an asshole.

The main thing causing people in the US to steal and commit violence is that they have bad character. Some more, some less, but at the end of the day they have bad character. Which is not to say that your brother was fundamentally or essentially a bad guy, and I am very sorry for your loss. But the thing is, the people your brother hurt by stealing matter as much as he does. We have a bad tendency in this country to focus most of our attention on the antisocial person instead of on his victims. But the victims are important, in fact they are much more important than the antisocial person. Remove the antisocial people from society and society will be just fine. Remove the pro-social people and society would collapse instantly.

Should we call anti-social people "dysfunctional scum" or "biowaste"? Well, it depends on just how anti-social they are. I am perfectly happy with calling thieves and violent people biowaste, human garbage. Is it the best way to have the conversation? May be not, but the terminology is not simply insulting, it is also accurate. At some point it is good to call a spade a space. Some people really are human trash. Your brother at least did some good things, but there are people out there who do nothing good that even comes close to making up for the damage that they cause. The people who are like that, yes, I will happily call them biowaste. I am sick and tired of people like that. The world would simply be much much better if they did not exist. They are worse than literal shit. At least literal shit just sits there, it doesn't hurt anybody unless they step on it.

I am no longer interested in rehabilitation. Due process? Sure, I'm into that. If we remove someone from society, I want it to be for actual reasons, not because some cop made a mistake. But rehabilitation? No. My attitude now is, just remove them from society as soon as possible and if they really want to rehabilitate, they can do it on their own time and using their own resources. I am not interested in giving them a single second of my time or a single penny of my money. There are so many good, kind, genuinely wonderful people in the world that I could give my time and resources to instead. Those are the people who actually deserve it. They are the people who make the world a beautiful place. And in this society, we should talk more about them, and we should valorize them, but as for the anti-social assholes, screw them. I owe them nothing other than my contempt, and the only thing I want to give them is a ride to a cage where they can be kept away from hurting nice people.

Crime is what soured me on legalizing drugs. The thing is that while “broken windows” policing doesn’t reduce crime the reverse isn’t true either — being more lax in policing makes things actively worse. When you could get a longish jail term for marijuana possession, it worked quite well to keep drugs and drug related crimes down simply by what I call “bouncer rules”. Sure, marijuana by itself is pretty tame, but since police knew who were the antisocial drug users and sellers, you could arrest them just for pot and prevent them from doing worse things. What decriminalized drug use did was push the cops away from preventing crime in a sense. You can’t just bust a guy for possession because we’ve decriminalized drugs, so now that cop has to wait until a guy he knows is a drug dealer and a thief steals from another person or a business and even at that, it now has to either involve an injury or a large amount of money. That allows problems to fester and get worse, and removes any incentive to curb the openness of the crime. There are open air markets for drugs— in full view of the public. Shoplifters go into stores and basically loot the place knowing that the cops can’t do anything until they hit $1000 per person. So now it’s impossible to get that element under control because we keep giving away the tools.

Ok accepting this logic ad argumentum, why would we stop prohibition short of alcohol? Why does the line run precisely between Marijuana and Whiskey?

I think there’s room for arguments around where exactly to draw the line on drugs. But I think the harder drugs should certainly be illegal simply, as I said as a way to keep the junkies from stealing and harassing people and from openly doing drugs on the streets. The problem is that as the do gooders continue to move various social norms toward the bottom, it creates a rot and quite often that rot ends up harming those who, unlike the do gooders who just want to be compassionate without a thought that such compassion might be making the problems worse.

I think the worst idea is decriminalized drug use for a lot of reasons. First of all, since most hard-drug users tend to either be thieves or fencing for other thieves, you can keep a lot of street crime down by giving jail time to drug users. You can’t always catch a thief in the act, but finding a dime bag is a decent enough proxy. Having drug use be illegal (and again, I’m thinking more of the hard stuff) also means that drug users will be much less likely to use openly, and if they do, you can arrest them for that. As it stands now, you can’t walk down some streets in major cities because homeless drug users harass people, rob people, shit on the streets, and build huge eyesores of cobbled together houses in the sidewalks. This obviously kills business near those areas because believe it or not, nobody with money to spend wants to go to drug alley for anything. This reduces the value of property within walking distance substantially and creates more poverty and more despair and ultimately more drug use and more crime. The monied flee fairly quickly as crime slowly climbs.

Are pot users criminal because they're antisocial, or are they antisocial because pot is criminalized? Seems pretty intuitive to me that pot in itself isn't the kind of drug that people steal, rob and kill for. Alcohol is vastly more "antisocial" in that regard.

Narcan makes legalizing opiates impossible.

Probably. But I don’t see how that deals with the problem of open air markets that exist now and the criminal elements attracted by them. The cops have their hands tied because even if opioids are illegal, most drug offenses are not being prosecuted to the full extent. And the gateway drugs are legal which makes it less of a problem for sellers.

In some of the articles I’ve read on the opioid crisis, cops were using narcan to revive different people multiple times a day in small WV towns. Hard not to think that implies the problem would resolve itself if it didn’t exist.

Rehabilitation is a modern cheat code word employed to pretend that curing the original sin of (someone else who is really to blame) is what will turn someone into a productive member of society, absolving the criminal/delinquent of their crimes by the magic of blaming someone else and pinky promising that rehab has made the desire to commit crime go away.

In truth crime is simply a balancing of incentive structures, and just because people are bad at making their own calculus does not absolve society of constructing poor incentives to begin with. Criminals may not necessarily understand the meta of rehab program + therapy sessions to get better in-prison treatment and get lesser sentences from DAs, but repeated interactions and information transfer surely leads to convergent evolution. The existence of lenient alternatives to incarceration serve to incentivize criminality, since legal economic avenues are not nearly as socially emotionally or economically rewarding as bipping cowardly suburbanites.

My point here is that many of the drug addicts you despise are actually struggling desperately. Most have had difficult lives. Some have loved ones that care deeply about them and want to see them get healthy. Others don't have anyone in the world who cares about them, either because they never had a family, or because their families died, or because they alienated them through their behaviors.

But calling someone "dysfunctional scum" or "druggie" or "biowaste" isn't the way to start these conversations. That's the kind of language people use to dehumanize others.

Career criminals often have difficult lives, and sometimes have loved ones who care deeply about them and want to see them get healthy. Others embody the stereotype of someone who turned to crime because the street was the only place where they could find community and a semblance of social contact.

None of this changes the fact that most crime consists of profoundly a-social acts which are a plague to the good order and function of everyone else around the criminal class. The community of those who do comply with the law, who do not prey on their fellows excessively, retains the right - indeed, arguably the obligation - to expel such people from their midst in order to preserve and safeguard the benefits that compliance with law brings. Yes, declaring the criminal hostis humani generis or homo sacer - is a type of dehumanization - it is a declaration that they criminal is someone whose deeds have been adjudged to be wicked and thus set outside the social order. They have been expelled from the community, and no longer receive the benefit of the community's promise of collective defense and care.

In a well-worn metaphor, it is the social body rejecting criminals and siccing its immune system on it. Of course, this response can be deployed too aggressively - a social auto-immune disease. But that a system is capable of malfunction does not mean the system has no function, or that one must be ashamed of it.

There are important conversations to be had about whether drug addiction is more of a choice or more of a disease.

The situation is darker and bleaker than that because of the third option: social contagion.

In Scotland, drug overdose deaths have soared to over a thousand a year in a country/(region of the UK) of merely five million. There is a big concentration of deaths in Dundee. The dynamics are rather like a contagious disease. How does social contagion mimic the in-person spread of an infection disease in the internet age? Junkies in Dundee are not going to Glasgow to buy their drugs; it is friend of a friend stuff with-in Dundee. The need to pass physical drugs from hand to hand creates geographically local dynamics.

But I'm old. I'm already familiar with the heroin cycle. Heroin is really cool. The fluffy cloud happiness of the high. The don't-give-a-fuck charisma of the users. The bodies piling up. And piling up. The rising part of the heroin cycle doesn't last. You don't introduce any-one younger to heroin use after your own funeral. And the occasion itself puts a damper on the whole scene. Soon heroin gains the evil reputation that recreational use deserves. "Nobody" uses any more. But every year, Mr Nobody grows a year older. Eventually the young people, who won't touch the stuff because they saw what it did to those ten years their senior, are no longer young enough to be at risk of starting. Those young enough to start, look to those a little older and see neither use nor warning signs. Some of them work out for themselves that heroin is fun. They tell their friends. The cycle closes and heroin in cool again.

I came of age during a low point of the heroin cycle, so I never tried it. But the micro-foundations of the cycle were evident in parallel matters. Things spread by word of mouth and from hand to hand. Friends warn against some things and endorse other things.

He was 35. Which brings my comment to the edge of the abyss. Back when needle sharing made Glasgow the AIDS capital of Europe, the prognosis for a heroin addicted was to become addicted around 20. Use for ten years. 50% die. 50% hit rock bottom (or just age out) and quit. 35 is old for an addict. Now that AIDS is treatable, the prognosis is probably better. Now that fentanyl is on the scene the prognosis is probably worse. I'm not keeping up with the statistics and don't know how it balances out. When some-one dies of drug addiction, we bury an "innocent victim". His "friends" in the drug scene play the role of his personal angels of death. And walking my comment over the edge of the abyss: did he take his curse to the grave with him, or did he manage to pass it on before he died?

I suspect that there is a missing demographic on the Motte: married with children. They are too busy to comment here. But I'm guessing that they want the junkies gone. They want the junkies gone before their children grow up and reach the age to be at risk. They don't want that to coincide with a high point of the heroin cycle. The stakes are much higher than a friend having plumbing gear stolen out of his truck.

Yup yup yup from one of those "married with children". I also model drug addiction as a contagion and it is clear to me that my own kids are better off if fentanyl is as prevelant as possible up until they reach the age where they might be exposed to it. And this is even moreso thanks to local decriminalization efforts - if you can't get junkies off the street with jail what's left?

missing demographic on the Motte: married with children. They are too busy to comment here

We read the QCs tho ;-)

I suspect that there is a missing demographic on the Motte: married with children. They are too busy to comment here. But I'm guessing that they want the junkies gone. They want the junkies gone before their children grow up and reach the age to be at risk. They don't want that to coincide with a high point of the heroin cycle. The stakes are much higher than a friend having plumbing gear stolen out of his truck.

Reporting in, and I post less largely because now that I have more skin in the game, When I imagine these issues impacting my daughter, I quickly become incandescent with rage. The least of my problems is getting modded here for being "uncharitable" to the monsters in human skin roaming amongst us. Far more worried about ending up on a watch list given that violence in my first, second and last reaction to the question of "What will I do when this arrives at my door?"

I second the sentiment about concern for kids. When childless I could not give a shit about drug policy or gender education, because let people live how they want. Now that I have kids, I waste time on asinine committees and boards because I want to guard against liberal crazies.

Its easy to not care if the only skin in the game is your own. Its much more personal when you actually give a shit about someone else. Vague secular humanist universalism has nothing on blood and soil.

I suspect that there is a missing demographic on the Motte: married with children. They are too busy to comment here. But I'm guessing that they want the junkies gone.

No, there are many mottizens who are married with children. Myself included.

And yes. I hung with a drug-happy crowd in my youth, though the heroin users were only peripheral to it. Enough people I knew on some level ruined and/or killed themselves through drugs, including an actual friend (of which I never had a lot).

Would I say that the most catastrohpic of them should have simply been made "gone"? Yes, absolutely, before they drag anyone else with them. Sad as it is, those individual lives are not worth the damage they cause. There are certainly edge cases where it may be worthwhile to have a conversation, but it's also by all means possible to drug oneself far beyond salvation and any reasonable expectation of tolerance by others.

And my thought there is not even "it would suck for my friends to have been Duterte'd", but "if only their predecessors' druggie careers had been cut short and the dealers strung up from lampposts, they might not have ruined themselves". I'm certain there will always be some level of drug use regardless of what society does, but a society that tolerates heroin junkies would better be some degree of libertarian. For a nanny-state, it's an embarassment.

Part of my own reckoning with the fecklessness of youth was nursing a 'good' friend back to health repeatedly. Having a slurring dribbling mess repeatedly collapse on your couch is fine if he cleans up after himself, but I asked him if he even enjoyed getting so trashed and his quiet 'I don't know how else to live' really shook me. Great family, loving relationships, excellent prospects, and he was throwing it away for diminishing returns because of a short circuited neurological reward pathway and a social system that enabled self destructiveness.

I left the states, abandoned my old number and ultimately lost touch with him entirely. His facebook page is a yearly 'Happy birthday ___' from the same few people, and I strongly suspect no one knows if he is alive or dead. I know the another guy is alive because he purged all his social media, but these autoupdated digital profiles might as well be tombstones.

I suspect that there is a missing demographic on the Motte

Reporting in. And yes I just want them gone.

There are important conversations to be had about whether drug addiction is more of a choice or more of a disease

I don't think it would be nice nor kind for drug addicts if we seriously started discussing drug addiction as a disease. Today we think diseases are treatable, but that is because the usual meaning of the word covers diseases caused by pathogens and relatively similar set of causes which the Western science can treat. Viruses that previously killed multitudes have been eradicated with vaccinations. Many of cancers can be fought and occasionally dealt with with surgery, radiation and chemotherapy (made possible because of the antibiotics). Even HIV can be managed with antiretrovirals. Common thread to all: sick individual receives treatment and is treated to effect they he or she is cured, gets better and regains functionality.

As evidenced by the growth of the problem of drug addiction, there is no equivalent of penicillin for addiction. If addiction is a disease, the medical science of addiction is at the level of the medicine of biological diseases in the 18th century or early 19th century: doctors often can recognize the disease you have, there is a scientific name for it, there are procedures to manage it, but professionals are in dispute how they work and which treatment works better than other, because none of them obviously and easily cures the patient or prevents its spread (the way antibiotics cure and vaccinations prevent). The methods that sometimes work often are radical, crude, painful, and often focus on preventing spread of the disease because the individual very rarely can be cured.

You get a wound that that is likely to become infected and septic? The treatment is amputation; there is a profession that is very skilled at removing your limbs quickly and efficiently, but it will be a painful operation and limit your functionality permanently. You catch leprosy (or a skin disease that looks like one)? There is no treatment, the public health officials will do their best to ship you to to a remote colony isolated from rest of the society, for life. Tuberculosis? You are encouraged to be shipped to a remote sanatorium isolated from the rest of the society, which can be a rather nice place if you are rich, but the treatments are no cures and you will eventually die there. Later revolutionary treatments include exposure sunlight and nutrition (which helps vitamin D intake, which may marginally help) and collapsing affected lung (possibly limiting spread of disease to other organs). Public health officials are concerned with sanitation to prevent spread of the disease.

Today we think diseases are treatable, but that is because the usual meaning of the word covers diseases caused by pathogens and relatively similar set of causes which the Western science can treat.

There are reports that Ozempic allows people to unhook to other stuff that they are hooked to - not only food. Like gambling. Chances are that probably we are somewhere in the neighborhood for penicillin for compulsive behavior.

It is left to the reader to decide whether this is good or bad thing and in what kind of jolly anti-utopia we will put ourselves into.

Scott offered a teaser for a forthcoming post about GLP-1 receptor agonists as a treatment for addiction. I very much look forward to reading that when it drops.

I have also seen these reports and man, I have trouble thinking that this stuff isn't fundamentally hollowing out people's humanity in some meaningful way. I can see that being a good tradeoff for people that are destroying their lives with food, booze, or gambling, but eliminating cravings seems almost synonymous with dampening drive and joy.

As someone who used ozempic for aesthetic weight loss... It's pretty insane. Cured my nicotine habit and brought my borderline alcoholism to maybe one-drink-a-week.

It also killed my libido. I've not heard much about that as a side effect, but a model where it works by just shutting down pleasure circuits seems to be consistent with it as a side effect.

Also helped my anxiety and spouts with depression, though. I expect it'll be really hard to disentangle all these effects.

Cravings suck. Satisfying the craving provides a dopamine hit, but plenty of other things provide similar hits without having the escalatory cycle of requiring more to be satisfied. Indulging in the addiction loop is absolving individual agency to seek prosocial alternatives, and further incentivizes a nonacretive utility function.

If Ozempic means people ge their dopamine hits from more effective sources, then that is a net benefit. If people get less addicted to retweets and updoots for personal validation and find value in touching grass then we will have a much better existence than what we suffer now.

What makes you think Ozempic won't also eliminate any satisfaction from "touching grass" as well?

Possible. I have only my own personal experience with addictions to go on, and my personal conclusion is that the diminishing returns of autonomic biochemical release from satiating addiction was specifically pleasurable due to the novelty of youth, and minor psychological reprogramming allowed my personal utility calculation to value steak, lagavulin and VR porn equally to nicotine and cocaine.

Of course that could be due to physiological incapability limiting me from continuing to achieve the same upper highs of nicotine and cocaine use that sparked the initial addiction cycle, but post-hoc quantification of 'personal utility' is so useless that I might as well make up whatever historical valence I had assigned to the different contributory factors.

I am personally suspicious of modern 'research' into therapy and addiction, particularly the suspiciously high incidence of journals concluding moral expatiation for asocial behaviors. He had addiction/genetic trauma/ptsd/a bad day so of course he had no choice but to be an asshole. In this space of 'addiction cannot be managed' the criticisms of Ozempic as some form of permanent pleasure-depriving limbic path zombiefication drug seems more like concern trolling to encourage continual indulgence in bad behaviors rather than handwringing about motivation death. If ozempic causes the tweaker to rot in a lazyboy watching SpongeBob and chugging doritos instead of seeking means to score meth for that sweet sweet dragon, then bring on the apathetic skinnification of antisocial losers.

It doesn't eliminate them (after all, it's not like ozempic users drop to a bmi of 20), it merely lessens them.

Going the other way, do you think that people with more cravings for food, etc are more joyous and driven than normal people? To me it seems unlikely. I suspect that the thought patterns that drive addiction are different than those that drive joy, and inhibiting the first doesn't lessen the second.

Many of these people are poor unfortunates.

But every society in history has figured out that harsh views about people who are merely unfortunate is a necessity of having a functional society. You can have the public and public institutions be unfair to people- indeed, it's impossible for them to be perfectly fair- they just need to work. And unfortunately being nice to drug addicts doesn't work.

Yes, some people fuck their lives up beyond redemption in this life and it's deeply unfair to them that their efforts to reform are for naught. I'm not saying it isn't. But other people don't need to be made to suffer because of it. Most heroine addicts never really get clean, try as they might, and when they get a batch with fentanyl in it and OD many other people breathe a sigh of relief and that's not because they're monsters. It's because that heroine addict, even a well intentioned heroine addict who really struggles to get clean, is creating negative externalities for everyone else, all the time. Asking us to deal with it is even more unfair; after all, we stable functional people didn't recommend him to get into drugs, and probably told him not to.

It's a rather bad idea to give wide masses of average people the impression that society will be harsh towards them should they simply have bad fortune. The view that society is merciless and unforgiving incentivizes drug addiction, crime and all sorts of social degeneracy.

What you punish you get less of, what you subsidize you get less more of. If society is merciless and unforgiving towards drug addicts, we will get less drug addiction, not more.

And calling drug addiction obtained through chasing a high "bad fortune" is spitting on those who really have experienced bad fortune.

What I disagree with is the proposition that "harsh views about people who are merely unfortunate is a necessity of having a functional society".

It is, though. The mechanism is that as soon as you decide that it's unacceptable to have hard views about the unfortunate, everyone in a bad spot gets called "unfortunate" because it would be arrogant and rude to say otherwise ("There but for the grace of God go I"). So because you cannot protect "unfortunate" from the creep of inclusion the self-destructive, you must allow harsh views of the unfortunate or people will assume you'll save them from their own self-destruction.

What you punish you get less of, what you subsidize you get less of

That second "less" should be "more" instead, no?

Yes, oops.

That is far from obvious to me. I could see the possibility that falling on harms times sans safety net leads to drug use, but I can’t see the causal mechanism of “if I don’t have a social safety net then bad times will follow so might as well drop out and drug up ensuring bad times”

I’m increasingly aware of just how much suffering and sin is caused by our belief that the world is hard and merciless. This belief—which can express itself as despair, or as the fearful drive to protect oneself above all else—makes it impossible to trust others. It makes social solidarity and even marriage extraordinarily difficult. The belief that we will be brutally punished if we set a foot out of line, that nobody will look out for us or help us or try to understand where we’re coming from, promotes abortion. It fuels addiction, by making us unwilling to admit where we’re needy, weak, or at fault.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/a-stillborn-child-leads-to-a-murder-charge-with-threat-of-life-in-prison/

"Unforgiving" would imply that society would remain harsh even after you got your act together, and I don't see anyone advocating for that. As for the rest I really don't see how it would incentivize it.

So does the view that society is endlessly tolerant and supportive of destructive behavior, and the view that society owes a debt to each meritless individual and deserves destructive behavior as a sort of retributive justice. And right now I'm fairly certain that various western societies are failing on the side of being excessively tolerant and enabling.

But the soul is still oracular, amid the market's din/List the ominous stern whisper, from the Delphic cave within/They enslave their children’s children who make compromise with sin.

"It’s not a ‘compromise with sin’, per se, just discarding certain people who happen to be a net loss to us."

"Exactly what do you think a compromise with sin is?"

It's sin all around. It's a sin of omission to allow these people to prey on others and generally shit up the place (often literally). And it's a sin of commission to use the power of government to protect those people from their victims.

Enshittification of public spaces has massive knock on consequences regarding social cohesion that are unquantifiable by econometrics. Diminished prosocial trust in neighbours to look after ones property and kin willingly, much less competently, results in private sector security and care solutions that take away theoretically optimal agglomerated public services. Property value disparities due to unspecified 'concerns' (crime. its crime) about neighbourhood populations cause inefficient capital utilization and rectification measures, or outright capital destruction. Worst of all, faith in public institutions faltering causes underinvestment and thus under capability of theoretically optimal outcomes.

Good outcomes flow from good societies. You can't build a utopia and bring in street trash and expect them to magically shape up. There are no CCS chargers in shitty neighbourhoods because tweakers steal the copper, and there are no grocery stores in food deserts because shitheads keep stealing stuff.

I certainly do not condone anti-social behaviour in public, nor the ignoring of it by municipal officials. However, the response to it needs to be one that acknowledges all people, including the least of these, as human beings.

That passage just demonstrates that Christianity is indeed at the root of these problems. None of those people is Jesus Christ, and taking them in and feeding and clothing them will result in nothing but destruction of one's home, food, and clothing. Certainly one can acknowledge they are human beings; that makes them worse, not better, because they didn't have to become what they are.

A few years back, a junkie broke into my building's garage and smashed the passenger-side window in every car in the building. Whether his condition was a product of choice or disease really didn't make a whole of difference to me, as where the reality of someone doing ten grand in damage to try to steal fifty bucks seemed pretty salient. If someone else would like to discuss how best to treat them, that'll be up to them, but step one is removing people like this from the general population. If I could get people in power to agree on removing such people from the general population, I would be amenable to pretty much any amount of spending on providing them with high-quality rehabilitation or just permanent incarceration - my interests in not having my windows smashed, my park camped in, and my public square not filled with bums yelling at people. Whatever happens with the junkie downstream of that I will leave to people that care about that part of things much more than I do.

Unfortunately, these "important conversations" in practice just mean kicking the can down the road while things get worse. Feels like a stalling action. It's like having "important conversations" about immigration while holding the door open. Just keep the "important conversations" going until the thing being discussed has already happened.

Whatever compassion some of us might have had has already been consumed by useless progressives letting addicts shit in the streets for years on end. Sorry if you thought there was an infinite amount of it to go around. Maybe take it up with the people squandering it, because those of us who just don't want human shit on the sidewalk are out of patience.

Are the progressives the only people to blame? I think the lack of any legitimate place to 大便 without spending money just might have a little bit to do with it....

When people are shitting in the bushes, shitting in the river, shitting in alleys behind dumpsters, maybe that's a sign you need more public toilets. When they're shitting in the middle of the sidewalk in broad daylight, it's a sign that your progressive local government has decided coddling degenerates is more important than upholding basic order.

It's pathetic excuse-making. Like if a cannibal lunatic eats someone's face on a streetcorner and you pop up to go "Yeah hunger is a serious problem."

Even San Francisco has public toilets, and there used to be more of them back in the day iirc.

Addicts deserve our sympathy. But society has forced many decent people into these harsh views about them, because institutions don’t take the necessary steps to protect these people from themselves, and therefore to protect us from them.

Your brother should have been taken to a psychiatric inpatient facility and have been kept there for 5+ years before being released. We can do this humanely. People do survive addiction, even to heroin, and go on to have happy, productive, drug-free lives. But it takes time, and it takes things that we no longer really do in the West.

Disparate impact is the meta for escaping accountability. Racism, mental illness, trauma (no longer restricted to acute incidental causes, with nebulous childhood and intergenerational traumas now accepted as equally valid) are unassailable escape clauses, and proximate trauma is now an accepted escape clause too. Censuring families for poorly managing their delinquent kin was socially accepted, but now it is rude to not consider every exculpatory clause for bad behavior.

The west has accepted self-declared victimisation as a social meta to extract goodwill and therefore resources from compliant populations. Whether this compliance will remain eternally subservient is currently unknown, but signs point to this meta breaking apart.

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