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 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.
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:
(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.")
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link