site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   22585 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 28, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Clara's core argument is that longer sentences do not decrease crime, so vote no on 36.

Californians - at least, those of us in big cities - shouldn’t have to tolerate the current rate of retail theft. But the decreased sentences of Prop 47 didn’t cause this crime, and there’s substantial evidence that harsher criminal penalties won’t decrease it. So what should we do?

The paper she links says the opposite, Clara just chooses to ignore the sections that don't agree with her:

8.6. Summary: Incapacitation versus standard release Surveying these studies of incapacitation relative to standard release reveals a few patterns:

• All find incapacitation.

• Incapacitation emerges more clearly for property crime than violent crime. Possibly this is merely because some of the policies studied (in the Netherlands and California) focused on people convicted of property crimes. But it may also be that the propensity for violence is more evenly distributed in the population, so that incarcerating some people does less to contain it.

Clara is not an honest person. She does not seriously engage with the question "do longer sentences decrease crime." She selectively engages in the question in such a way that points to her favored outcome. She openly lies about the content of papers she uses to argue her favored outcome.

An honest reckoning of this question needs to consider incapacitation - when someone is locked in prison they cannot engage in crimes outside of prison. I have yet to see an explanation for the below two facts.

  1. criminality is extremely concentrated, it is the same people being arrested over and over again. https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1647031826202935300

  2. people who are released from prison will the majority of time go on to commit more crimes.
    https://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/recidivism_and_reentry/

It is extremely clear that criminality is very concentrated. It is the same people being arrested over and over again, of course keeping them locked up longer will decrease crime. When they're let out they usually reoffend. They reoffend at such rates that it is impossible to believe that letting them out will not increase crime.

You definitely need to post this call-out in the thread. Lying about what's in cited papers knowing nobody will read them should be disqualifying, or the spirit of SSC is just another hollowed-out skin-suit for leftist propaganda.

I did go back and reread the paper. "Openly lies" was not very charitable of me, and there is an interpretation of it that supports what she says. I just think its a very bad interpretation, to the point still makes me question her and the authors integrity.

The claim is this, from the top line summary. Basically that while incarceration does reduce crime via incapacitation (Section 8), it also causes more crime inherently (Section 9). And that these effectively cancel each other out:

The crux of the matter is that tougher sentences hardly deter crime, and that while imprisoning people temporarily stops them from committing crime outside prison walls, it also tends to increase their criminality after release. As a result, “tough-on-crime” initiatives can reduce crime in the short run but cause offsetting harm in the long run.

So the question becomes: does a reasonable reading of Section 9 say this? I do not think it does, and I think its very weak to the point of dishonesty to claim it does. There are 13 studies examined, here is the summary.

9.14. Summary: Aftereffects The preponderance of the evidence says that incarceration in the US increases crime post-release, and enough over the long run to offset incapacitation. A quartet of judge randomization studies (Green and Winik in Washington, DC; Loeffler in Chicago; Nagin and Snodgrass in Pennsylvania; Dobbie, Goldin, and Yang in Philadelphia and Miami) put the net of incapacitation and incarceration aftereffects at about zero. In parallel, Chen and Shapiro find that harsher prison conditions—making for incarceration that is harsher in quality rather than quantity—also increases recidivism. Gaes and Camp concur, though less convincingly because in their study harsher incarceration quality went hand in hand with lower incarceration quantity. Mueller-Smith sides with all these studies and goes farther, finding modest incapacitation and powerful, harmful aftereffects in Houston; but modest hints of randomization failure accompany those results.

Some studies dissent from the majority view that incarceration is criminogenic. Roach and Schanzenbach find beneficial aftereffects in Seattle—a result that is also subject to some doubt about the quality of randomization. Bhuller et al. make a more compelling case that incarceration reduces crime after—in Norway. Berecochea and Jaman, one of the few truly randomized studies in this literature, also looks more likely right than wrong, and is also somewhat distant in its setting, early-1970s California. And there are the two Georgia studies (Kuziemko and Ganong), which upon reanalysis no longer point to beneficial aftereffects, but still do not demonstrate harmful ones either.

Aftereffects must vary by place, time, and person. But the first-order generalization that best fits the credible evidence is that at the margin in the US today, aftereffects offset in the long run what incapacitation does in the short run.

Ok so of the 13 studies they looked at, some say more prison makes people commit more crimes when they are released. Some say that more prison makes people commit less crimes when they are released. Some say that more prison doesn't have any effect people committing crime when released.

Positive aftereffects, count of more crime studies: 9.3!, 9.4!!, 9.9

Negative aftereffects, count of less crime studies: 9.1, 9.7, 9.8, 9.11, 9.12!!!!

Zero aftereffects, count of same crime studies: 9.5!!!, 9.6, 9.10, 9.13

Not clear aftereffects, count of little predictive value: 9.2

I did really only skim these, so possible I misassigned some. But I think it is very clear that from the studies reviewed they have no idea the impact of incarceration on recidivism. Very curious how aftereffects can vary by place, time and person so much and still offset the results of incapacitation. Looks very unclear to me, and given the highly concentrated nature of criminality this is not sufficient evidence to conclude that being incarceration is criminogenic such that it cancels out the effects of incapacitation. No idea how the author comes to the top line conclusion they do. Wonder if it has anything to do with this:

The Open Philanthropy Project has joined a latter-day criminal justice reform movement. It too is motivated by the belief that something is wrong with the state’s use of punishment to combat crime. Something is wrong, in other words, with those pictures. Higher incarceration rates and longer sentences, along with the “war on drugs,” have imposed great costs on taxpayers, as well as on inmates, their families, and their communities (Alexander 2012).

! 9.3 does not actually look at how long prisoners are in prison, it only looks at security levels. Why is it in here?

!! 9.4. Similar to 9.3, this only looks security levels, and only among those that return to prison. Nothing about if they commit more crimes, or even if those in higher security commit more or less crimes. It just asks "if they were in a higher security level prison, does someone who is reoffend do so faster or slower than in lower security." Say only 1 of high security prisoner reoffends, but he does it in a day after release. If 100% of lower security releasees reoffend, but they all do it longer than 1 day after release, then this study says its more assignment to a higher security prison causes releasees to go back to prison faster.

!!! 9.5 - this one was actually very weakly more crime, but author says it is so weak he is counting it as 0

!!!! 9.12 - original study said strong negative aftereffects, author reanalyzed and says ambiguous. Maybe this goes in zero.

I do wish we could figure out real rehabilitation methods for those that could be receptive. We can program people to think and believe lots of things. Norway, Denmark, and Japan all have seemingly more successful release programs. Although, I have read on Wordcel Substacker #300 differences in recidivism may not be as stark as they are made out to be as commonly understood.

This 20% vs 76.6% comparison is particularly egregious as the Norwegian figure is more narrowly defined and measured over a much shorter time frame. The American 76.6% figure above was based on rearrest within 5 years (Durose et al., 2014), whereas the Norwegian 20% figure described the number who received a new prison sentence or community sanction that became legally binding within 2 years (Kristoffersen, 2013). Both figures refer to prisoners released in the year 2005.

Of the American recidivism statistics mentioned in the previous section, the 28.8% incarceration figure is arguably the most comparable in definition to that of the 20% Norwegian figure.2 Thus, when the comparison is closer to apples-to-apples, the difference between Norway and the United States is far more modest.

Norway still releases more young people in their 20's that reoffend less than the US. So, something over there works better. Whether that's ethnic, cultural, procedural, or a combination. Intaking people young and releasing them old will decrease crime, yes. Clara would probably say it isn't fair to keep someone in jail for 20 years after stealing $500 of shampoo (for the 5th or 25th time).

Bleeding heart advocacy might be better aimed at separating the extreme serial offenders (who should remain in jail) at the tails from the less dedicated (but regular) criminal. Instead it appears to all be wrapped together in the general Prison Bad memeplex and abolitionist impulse. Effective parole programs should keep former criminals busy and out of trouble, but they don't do this very well. The profit incentive for a private probation contractor is another, if often overstated, complicating factor in my eyes.

I don't trust the state to throw up its hands and say, sorry the best we can do is hand out X year sentences to everyone until they're 40. Thankfully this isn't proposed. For the person on their 12th conviction? I don't know what else can be done. Either accept the trade off (more criminals more crime), ship them to Australia, or some Prospera-style project where Progressive Abolitionist, Inc. can run their own rehabilitation experiments.

Anyone starting to feel like there's nothing really that dystopic about A Clockwork Orange?

The only dystopic part of Clockwork Orange is that they even bothered trying to rehabilitate ultra violent criminals instead of summary execution.

Norway uniquely jails speeders who reoffend far less than a normal which is discussed further down the piece bringing the gap to 25% vs 28%.

The gap is so small that imo default should be incapacitation is not rehabilitory. Maybe not so much in that its so ironclad to be true, but because it would shift the idea that it where innovation in the justice system has potential.

Your points about parole theoretically much better potential seems drastically underexplored compared to prison.

I do wish we could figure out real rehabilitation methods for those that could be receptive. We can program people to think and believe lots of things. Norway, Denmark, and Japan all have seemingly more successful release programs. Although, I have read on Wordcel Substacker #300 differences in recidivism may not be as stark as they are made out to be as commonly understood.

I think to a large extent we already have figured this out, and there really was not much to figure out to begin with. Being receptive to rehabilitation is the battle, that is all it takes, that is rehabilitation. Someone is rehabilitated when they don't want to do crime anymore, and then they go out and don't do crime anymore. Maybe we can program people to think and believe things, but we cannot program people who do not want to be programed. They will just do what they want. But really there is nothing much to program - just don't do crimes.

It is largely forgotten in these conversations that we are asking for the bare minimum. Do not steal, do not be violent, pay your taxes. People refuse to cooperate, they make active and conscious choices to break the law in ways we (almost) all agree are unacceptable, and it suddenly turns into this vexing social problem of "why?" or "how do we fix this". As if something is wrong with us, society, and not them, the criminal. I think that we as a society need to get over asking "why" here, we should realize that it is the simple answer: they want to. They are the problem, they need to fix it. And if they don't want to fix it then they can stay in the cage for the agreed upon time.

To speak to the larger conversation, which I don't necessarily think you are arguing: When we have a conversation about rehabilitation, who is this conversation centered on? It is the criminal. Whose interests should the criminal justice system serve? Is it the criminal's? Or is it society's? I do think that rehabilitation needs to be a large part of the conversation, but the frame always needs to be on society and what is best for us. The conversation cannot just center on rehabilitation, it needs to include incapacitation. The conversation needs to be centered on what is best for society. Clara, and most progressives, ignore this.

As if something is wrong with us, society, and not them, the criminal.

This gets to a key point in my "disparate impact" effortpost, as well as the Emile DeWeaver "Crime, the Myth" piece I linked and quoted here, particularly the bit:

Then there’s a second myth, that crime is an act committed by an individual. Calling an act a crime is instead a choice we make as a society about how we respond to harms committed in our community.

(Emphasis added).

The criminal laws we have did not descend from the heavens. They are a social construct, a societal choice, and we can always choose differently; laws have varied quite a lot across human history.

It's a matter of where we place the problem. I remember an anti-HBD piece from @ymeskhout, giving the example of a game law limiting shellfish harvesting from a beach, and how everyone caught breaking it was a Cambodian immigrant. One can frame this as a problem with the Cambodians, and ask how we get them to stop over-harvesting shellfish… or we can frame it as a problem with a law that disproportionately punishes Cambodians by labeling behaviors more common among them as "criminal." One could easily eliminate said disparate impact by repealing the limit on shellfish gathering, after all.

If, instead of picking our leaders by elections, we did so by a test of sprinting ability ("There's only one Big Giant Office, and whoever outruns the fireball wins!"), the racial makeup of our government would be rather different, wouldn't it? (A lot more Kenyans, Afro-Caribbeans no?) Similarly with all the "13/50" memes; if you replaced the current US criminal code with that of, say, the Kingdom of Dahomey, would the racial disparities stay nearly as stark?

The position in the Kendi, DeWeaver, etc. space is that to frame the problem as being with people is inherently bigotry, and incompatible with values of tolerance and equity. The problem must be seen as with the system, and to address any problems, we must change who and what our society chooses to label as "criminal," and how we treat those so labeled.

I'm reminded of all the "Positive Action" self-esteem building crap we got in grade school back in the late 80s and early 90s (I thought it was stupid and nonsense back then, and my opinion has only gotten lower). It was full of "you're perfect just the way you are" assertions. Take this idea — the flower of liberal tolerance and the individualist view that "[a]t the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life" — and combine the value of "equity," and this seems to follow rather straightforwardly.

There's a core liberal impulse here — a "the laws were made for Man" view, a "that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men… it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it" view — that we must adapt "the system" to fit, and bring equity and fairness to, the people in all their diversity and freedom, rather than force people to adapt to a particular "system" created by one specific culture, reflecting a specific set of values, out of all the many possibilities.

Kenyans are the distance runners. It's west africans, the dominant genetic heritage of Caribbean blacks, that are the sprinters.

Thanks, fixed. (Like Hakan Rotmwrt said, "High-quality racism is extraordinarily hard work.")

For the person on their 12th conviction? I don't know what else can be done.

Every society in human history before about the year 1900 understood that the death penalty was a perfectly salutary way to get rid of individuals who have conclusively demonstrated, numerous times over an extended duration, that they’re unwilling and/or incapable of participating non-parasitically in society. I have no idea why nearly the entire world forgot this more or less simultaneously.

conclusively demonstrated, numerous times over an extended duration, that they’re unwilling and/or incapable of participating non-parasitically in society

To play devils advocate this would describe the red tribe to people who will very likley end up in charge of the US in the long term.

As I’ve made clear before, I don’t believe that there is such thing as “the red tribe”, nor do I believe that there is any meaningful number of progressives in positions of power who believe in executing people for expressing conservative opinions.

I don’t believe that there is such thing as “the red tribe”

While it's definitely true that there is no cohesive red tribe with common elders and kings, the various groups of normally-republican-voting Americans who side with each other for me and my brother against my cousin reasons are enough of a thing with enough commonalities to merit having a name.

I don’t think there’s anywhere near enough commonality between these various groups, nor enough history of voting together, to constitute anything remotely like a “tribe”. There have been significant political realignments over the last fifty years, including ones even within my lifetime. Entire demographic groups, income brackets, and occupations which used to reliably vote for one party now vote for another. Working-class laborers in the Midwest used to be a very reliable Democratic voting bloc, but the Republicans started peeling them off less than 20 years ago. To me, this sort of thing does not make a “tribe”. Tribes have a long history. What we’re talking about today are just people who watch the same cable news programs and follow the same content creators on Twitter.

Yes, I will agree with you that 'tribe' is a stupid description, although many of the component groups can be fairly described that way. But it is a thing that exists, and has common shibboleths and cultural convergences.

But it is a thing that exists, and has common shibboleths and cultural convergences.

So, I think that this is true to some extent now under Trump, because he has provided a specific rallying point for these groups to converge around/against. However, I don’t think it was true at all when Scott actually wrote the essay in question.

nor do I believe that there is any meaningful number of progressives in positions of power who believe in executing people for expressing conservative opinions.

True but if once we got to the point where we decided as a society "we should start just liquidating inconvenient people again" it might not be entirely clear where that stopped or who would be designated disposable under that paradigm. I am just as I said playing devils advocate here, I think if we got to the point where we were just executing either thieves or conservatives society would have gone pretty far off the rails albeit in radically different directions in those two cases.

Draco and the bloody code and the regulator-moderator war were exceptions, most historical societies did not execute petty criminals, although corporal punishment, fines, and public humiliation were common and enslavement slightly less so.

Christianity.

The Second Great Awakening was a hell of a drug.

The timing for that doesn’t work out at all. The Second Great Awakening burnt out by the 1830s–40s, several generations before most states eliminated or severely restricted the death penalty. Also, Christians support the death penalty at higher rates than non-Christians, at least in the United States.

The surge in the 70s depends on Supreme Court jurisprudence which probably couldn’t have occurred before the New Deal. But I think capital punishment advocacy does date back to the 1800s. States like Michigan banned it early with explicitly Christian arguments.

Today’s split probably has more to do with partisan habits than with religion.

IIRC the death penalty still retains majority approval in many countries around the world, even those where it has been abolished. It’s not a case of “the entire world” forgetting, so much as it is the Western ruling classes forgetting. This, I suspect, can be ascribed to the ruling class living in ever more of a low-crime, high-trust bubble as compared to the common rabble.

So, yes, the death penalty does have majority public support in many if not most advanced countries. However, in how many of those countries do you believe the statement “the death penalty should be used on individuals who have shoplifted 45 times, but who have not otherwise committed any violent crimes” would enjoy majority support? My sense is that the answer is probably zero. People in European-derived societies appear to have become incredibly squeamish about executing non-violent but otherwise persistent and un-rehabilitatable criminal offenders.

The death penalty for sex crimes and drug dealers probably has majority support in the U.S., although shoplifting specifically I doubt it.

There's a knock on effect of execution for murder or attempted murder on how expensive and awful prisons are. Gangs thrive in prison because the guards are not able to maintain a monopoly on violence, which is partly because many prisoners have nothing left to lose.

Edit: forgot to make the full connection to the current topic, which is that policing minor offenders like shoplifting would still get a lot easier with the consistent application of the death penalty even if they aren't the ones getting executed.

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