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 guess, but I also feel like it's terrible to have to make it painful for people. Ask almost anyone how they want to die, and they'll say something like "painlessly and in my sleep". How many people actually die like that? Very few. I don't expect most suicides are as painless as lethal injection would be.
I've come to view the physical pain of suicide as a feature rather than a bug due to its deterrent effect. You have to really, really want it, and I think that's a good thing. But ODing on fentanyl seems... well, not fun, but better than most other methods.
More options
Context Copy link
I was under the impression that painlessness was debated. Looking it up, this issue seems to be a complete shitshow.
As I understand the arguments, lethal injection is only painful and unreliable when used for executions. When the same chemical is used for good lethal injections a moral-ionic bond flips and makes it painless and humane.
Once I started noticing things like this, it became impossible to stop.
I don't understand why we suck so much at killing people in humane and dignified ways.
Why the fuck are we messing with chemicals and gas and electricity and whatever random stupid things when firing squads have existed for centuries and are reliable, quick, inexpensive and painless?
Is it because people want a more presentable corpse? Do people hate martial aesthetics? Is it too much fun coming up with new ways of executing people using the latest gizmos of science?
Are you sure death (ceasing to exist) is swift-enough following a bullet in the brain? Frankly, I'd feel more comfortable speeding up to 200km/h and hitting a tree.
More options
Context Copy link
Firing squads are more troublesome than you’d expect.
We abhor a mess, and anything that can be perceived as undignified. There’s also an impact on the executioner(s). We want the criminal gone, but we’d prefer not to do it.
More options
Context Copy link
Firing squads are messy and easy to screw up. The guillotine is quick and reliable, but even messier.
More options
Context Copy link
Honestly I'm confused why a bolt gun or some sort of pneumatic guillotine isn't used. Latter is literally impossible to fuck up if you put enough PSI behind a heavy enough blade.
Sure, from the moment you cut the head it's irreversible (maybe technically not quite, given cryonics...).
As a subject, I'd prefer something that disintegrates the actual neural network than letting it die from blood loss.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Some effect similar to the euphemism treadmill, perhaps? No matter what method you use, that method will steadily lose favour due to it being associated with killing, so you keep inventing new ones to shed the old emotional baggage.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yikes, I didn't realize until I just looked it up myself. It's strange, when I look up whether it's painless for people, everyone seems to say that, no it's not. When I look up whether putting pets to sleep is painless, everyone seems to say, yes, it totally is. Do they use different drugs in these scenarios? Is the protocol different? Or are people just fooling themselves into thinking their pets are having peaceful deaths?
They seem to be painless. Speaking for fairly direct personal experience, you're essentially put to sleep, and then your heart stops. Direct witness reported seeing no distress (witness to Canadian euthanasia administrant).
More options
Context Copy link
I think pets are put to sleep with a barbiturate overdose, while executions involve some bizarre cocktail of drugs that persists only because the anti-execution lobby will seize on any change to the status quo as an opportunity to create years of delay and billions of dollars of legal fees for the state.
Can you elaborate? Why would the anti-execution lobby want more painful deaths?
They don't. They want less executions total. The problem is that the tug-of-war can result in bizarre things on the ground as what gets done is what's easiest to defend (rather than what is best).
That said, IIRC there are some places that have stopped using LI entirely because the anti-execution lobby managed to get literally every pharmaceutical manufacturer to cease selling to prisons. It's not solely a "status quo is god" thing.
I'm not really sold on the DP in first-world countries myself, at least as a coercive measure. Lifers should definitely get the option, though.
More options
Context Copy link
I think they just want to oppose executions with any and every legal argument they can make without risking their lawyers' law licenses. It just happens that changing the status quo increases the surface area for legal challenge.
More options
Context Copy link
For the same reason the green lobby "wants" higher carbon emissions - most people aren't utilitarians.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not sure. I would guess the cocktail is different—I didn’t see anything about potassium for animals—but I don’t think I can confirm without a lot of bleak reading.
For fairness’ sake, I have seen both yes and no argued for human pain. By all accounts it seems to beat electrocution.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link