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'm trying to do a deeper dive into education and its outcomes on children's life success. This is sort of a rehash on a post i made before. However this time the speaker is Matthew Stewart, who documents the same class differences that Charles Murray wrote about. Particular focus on the 9.9%. These people essentially live in gated neighborhoods with zoning that excludes people with less overall wealth. Much of schooling is funded by property taxes, and so as a result of the 9.9%'s houses being expensive, their schools get more and better funding, but when i took a small look, ive come across information stating that poor and rich schools receive the same funding in many instances, bringing the better schools advantage into question. To be fair, these schools may still hold an advantage in other ways, perhaps they have students that are less disruptive for example. Ive noticed here that there are many who debate this issue as one of the chicken and egg. Is it that the people in the lower class simply do bad behaviors, and thus they are in the lower-class with bad schools, and their children have worst outcomes because of it (or the children themselves are bad, which makes the school bad as well since you have many bad children that disrupt well behaved children's ability to learn), (and vice versa - the higher class simply made the right decisions, and thus their children benefit.) or does already being in poverty cause the bad behaviors/poor schooling? It seems very clear that college education effects outcomes such as higher earnings. But Id like more information on K-12. Mainly because id like to give my offspring the best advantage possible, and select the optimal school district and educational system for him/her. Does this simply not matter as much as we thought previously? Or perhaps there is more in the power of parents to help with schooling, with educational activities such as reading and writing at an early age?
On the issue of property taxes and school funding, this varies by state. The state I'm in puts everything into one budget, subsidized with oil taxes, and funds the Title I (low income) schools more, but the better off schools make some of it up in better parent-teacher associations and less need for things like social workers.
There's probably a dynamic where better teachers like teaching better students, and will move to the charter or private or high income schools disproportionately. I'm not sure how big the effect of that is. The teachers having to spend all their energy on disruption and children who are behind is something that happens, and I'm not sure how big of an affect it has at normal ranges of children.
This probably varies a fair bit by child. There are some children (I've heard it's about 40%) who will learn to read competently based on the kind of exposure that it's almost impossible to avoid in the current society. My mom says she learned to read at three by her father reading the newspaper to her. There are other children who need explicit instruction in phonics, though I think most schools are back to teaching that so it's probably alright. I am not sending my own child to the school I work at because I am involved in workplace drama there, and don't want to get my kids pulled into that. But they'd still make friends and learn to read and add there, probably.
There are schools that are kind of a drag on kids' natural curiosity, which might be more of a long term problem, though I'm not sure if there's any research on that, or how to go about researching it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I wonder if any of you sometimes feel that someone of the outgroup just made a good move or just a good point (in other words, produced useful propaganda) in the culture war that takes you by surprise. A long time ago I noticed some liberals quoting a statement from a Christian pastor regarding abortion and I now decided to trace it back to the original source. According to Snopes it’s from pastor Dave Barnhart of the Saint Junia United Methodist Church in Birmingham, Alabama in 2018:
"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.
Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.
I have to say that even though I doubt I’d ever agree with him on these issues, it sounds kind of…witty? Snappy? Clever? It all comes across as on point. It feels like I wouldn’t know how to respond to it. If I had to find something about it to nitpick, the only thing I can come up with is that the people who usually resent the patriarchy, condescension and political incorrectness are normally suburban middle-class college-educated white liberal culture warriors and their mulatto allies of similar backgrounds, not any of the groups the pastor mentioned, especially not widows. I can’t even tell why he brought them up at all; maybe it seemed to be a better idea than to bring up single mothers. And I might also argue that yeah, advocating for groups that are morally complicated as hell is probably not a good political move. Which also makes me sound kind of an asshole though.
This is one of those leftover Redditisms that just refuses to die.
No, actually, the religious people advocating for the unborn actually do also do a TON of work for all sorts of people. The society of Saint Vincent De Paul, for instance, or Covenant House.
Because: these people are actually consistent in their beliefs. They care about people, including the unborn, and dedicate substantial parts of their life and work to caring for them. All that stuff they talk about at Mass every Sunday, they actually believe it. It’s not for show.
More options
Context Copy link
It has not gone unNoticed by wrong-thinkers there exists a large segment of the white religious right (and mainstream conservatives as a whole) that forms an unholy alliance with progressives when it comes to simping for women and non-Asian minorities. After all, it wasn’t irreligious members of the right self-flagellating and washing the feet of blacks while BLM was going strong. Someone on the Motte or the culturewarroundup subreddit once wholesomely referred to members of such a segment as “lefty Christ cucks,” for sharing the values of one group of people that hates them and bending the knee (in the aforementioned case, literally) for another that also hates them.
This segment is united with progressives in maintaining that Women are Wonderful, and are more than happy to punish and vilify men for women’s coffee moments. Instead of thot-patrolling girls and young women, they’d rather blame boys and men. Instead of reducing the freedom of girls and women as a tradeoff to increase the protections afforded to girls and women, they’d rather keep or increase female freedom, increase female protections, and reduce both the freedom and protections afforded to boys and men. See, for example, the excommunication of Trevor Bauer—who as the result of false rape accusations—got relegated from the Los Angeles Dodgers to the Yokohama DeNA BayStars and now wears a red hat for the Diablos Rojos del México.
This segment is united with progressives in blank slatism and being unaware of or being outright hostile to HBD. The alliance believes in the psychic unity of mankind, that differences between individuals and groups of people are only cosmetic, that every criminal and Person of Unhousedness can be redeemed if we just tried harder, that the poor are only poor due to bad luck and thus deserve extra help and wealth transfers. Blank slatism has been long referred to as “liberal creationism” for a reason. This segment also sometimes attempts to play the DR3 card in discussions about abortions, since blacks get abortions at disproportionate frequencies.
I suppose the most relatively novel part is claiming that being Allies for the unborn is morally convenient compared to being Allies for prisoners, immigrants, the sick, the poor, widows, orphans and accusing those who advocate for the former but not the latter groups of picking off low hanging fruit, taking the easy road, and not Doing Enough as Decent Human Beings. However, as someone who is pro-abortion (because I really support women’s choice and stuff, of course) and not exactly a devoted advocate of the latter groups, I find this unmoving (shocking, I know). It reminds me of “it’s not enough be non-racist, you have to be anti-racist.” Additionally, this attitude of you should also be an advocate for X2, … , Xn if you’re an advocate for X1, because being an advocate for just X1 is too easy, reminds me of Calvin’s dad and Misery Builds Character.
I wouldn't be surprised if pro-abortion becomes the mainstream view of the religious right in a decade or two, or if the unborn become but one group among many that warrant advocacy and compassion, without extra distinction. The unborn and the unhoused, side by side in the priorities of the religious right. Such a shift in views has happened before. For example, in just eleven years among white evangelicals, support for gay marriage has increased substantially, looking like a graph of stock markets going up. As of 2017, support for gay marriage among young white evangelicals was already nearly at parity, so it's likely the majority now. Catholics and mainline Protestants as a whole are already above parity. So it appears the religious right was not all that convicted about marriage being between a man and a woman. The saying that conservatives are but progressives driving the speed limit comes to mind.
Widows make one question patriarchy all right, albeit in the manner opposite of which the pastor presumably intends. Women have always been the primary victims of their husbands working harder, enduring more stressful lives, and dying earlier. While already Stressed and Traumatized, these poor women have to perform the physical and emotional labor of managing the estates that their stupid husbands let behind, or hiring/appointing someone to do so.
Investment companies often deploy this angle when advertising their portfolio management and financial advisory services to widows (a selfless act of compassion, naturally, at the modest fee of 1% of AUM yearly). Some employees at these companies are likely cynical and self-aware as to what they’re doing (to which I say: slay, kings!) but some are true believers of widows being the primary victims of their husbands dying earlier. Thus, here we even have a three-party unholy alliance between the religious right, progressives, and the financial services industry.
I want to ponder a couple of your observations a bit more, because I have some thoughts to untangle. But as a religious righty myself, I would encourage you to distinguish three groups:
In particular, I think that the growth of the second group is distinct from drift within the third group. That doesn’t imply that the religious right proper isn’t changing at all, because it is, but if you try to plot its course by following, e.g., Russell Moore, you are going to be confused.
More options
Context Copy link
The counterpoint being that those other people can advocate for themselves and can show gratitude to you for helping them, two things that an unborn baby cannot do. And the circumstances are obviously different. It’s like saying in 1942 Germany “it’s easy to advocate for the Jews they don’t want anything except to survive. The poor are harder, they want you to feed them and give them money.”
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Like a lot of these political and cultural debates it's just people grappling with Philosophy 101 concepts without the tools or vocabulary needed to really engage beyond a surface level (maybe intentionally). In this case it's a motivated rehash of "Doing vs. Allowing Harm" https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/doing-allowing/
The classic example is:
The abortion case is only complicated by the question of whether or not destroying a fetus is "doing harm". If you agree that it is, then an abortion is clearly morally wrong as just about every ethical system agrees that "doing harm" is wrong.
It's practically a non sequitur to bring up "allowing harm" to try to make an accusation of hypocrisy here as it is in no way obvious that doing and allowing harm are morally equivalent. Philosophers have spilled oceans of ink debating the question, and it's extremely unlikely that people who disagree on whether an abortion is "doing harm" or not will agree on the "Doing vs. Allowing Harm" question.
More options
Context Copy link
It is illegal to kill the poor, and in point of fact the pro-life movement is fighting(and, it must be said, generally losing this fight) against the killing of the elderly and chronically ill. There is nothing inconsistent about being pro-life; this is simply a very progressive man dressing up his progressivism in the guise of Christian religion. There’s nothing particularly unique about this; lots of people wrap their ideology in the trappings of local religions. There’s also little that’s particularly Christian; no doubt this pastor would point out, accurately, that Jesus wants us to be better people. But so does Confucius and Kant and Aristotle and president trump and, presumably, Chuck E. Cheese. Jesus also wants us to believe in Him and bring all nations to belief in Him, and I doubt this pastor mentions that part much.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know what pro-life people Pastor Barnhart knows, but the ones I've known are the same people doing a bunch of stuff to help out single mothers ("widows," lol), and adopt or foster abandoned children ("orphans" would be way easier to help, there's a lot of court input around the kids that is a huge drag on these relationships. My impression is that actual orphans are usually immediately adopted, often by relatives).
Balancing the needs of the current community and the needs of lawbreakers is indeed complicated, and I'm not surprised that what is mostly a coalition of mothers or would be mothers doesn't have a good solution for that.
Once I tried going to an Arab church, where the pastor spent the whole homily complaining about men who prefer to smoke hookah with their friends, rather than going to church. He didn't seem to be addressing them directly, so I suppose they were not there that morning, either. Did he think their wives and daughters would go home and shame them, and they would start coming again? Seems unlikely. We didn't go back. This feels like that. Somewhere, there are probably some people who might be like he describes. It's a big country, with a lot of different flavors of hypocrite in it. But aiming sermons at someone, somewhere, hoping it'll be shared on social media until they find it seems... bad. Immoral, maybe. In dereliction of his duty as a pastor. My impression of him as a pastor, based on this, is very, very poor.
Earlier this year my aunt shared a Facebook post from Dan Rather saying something like, "Last time I checked, pro-lifers weren't lining up to adopt children."
Having higher standards than Dan Rather, I took a few minutes to look it up, and found, as I expected, that evangelicals do adopt a lot of children, but also that the media have been running occasional hit pieces on evangelical adoption for at least a decade.
Yeah, even in the 90s that take was significantly behind the times in the US, when Christians were adopting toddlers from Korea, Africa, and former USSR countries, but then there were scandals about how many of those children weren't actually "unwanted" either, their relatives were lied to by adoption agencies.
I've known several families try to adopt, and one ended up with a toddler after many years in the process, another ended up with a surrogate carrying an IVF fetus from another family, and one still hasn't succeeded at adopting, despite being willing to adopt older kids, siblings, and go through the court process with parents who are unable to keep them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What's the "good point" here? This is just the conservative heatmap meme with some liberal keywords thrown in.
In fact, most "owns" on abortion in particular tend to be insipid. Not sure why.
Perhaps that's a sign that there's a deep disagreement we can't resolve beneath it all. So all owns must caricature the opponent or be unsatisfying since they can't fully resolve the issue with the level of certainty and decisiveness desired.
I mean, you could also argue that most people who buy into these sorts of ideas don't relinquish their "privilege" either, despite rhetorical concessions.
In fact, they use these concessions to better abuse their less enlightened fellow citizens. You'd think a pastor would be aware of the issues around ostentatious piety.
Or that well-meaning but ultimately harmful policy is not a good idea for governments. No matter what Christians do in their private life.
I think it’s cynicism. It’s like you can’t quite except that the people you disagree with are reasoning honestly from moral priors and thus they must somehow be choosing to act on a belief but perhaps not some other one out of a calculated social standing perspective. To be fair, there are vanity beliefs and issues that people choose for the purpose of securing a place in the social hierarchy, but at the same time, there are genuine believers in almost any movement.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This quote just shows how little anti-abortion activists demand. Only wanting it to be illegal to intentionally kill a member of some demographic is a lowest standard of human rights one could possibly demand.
If someone identified as a pro-criminals, pro-druggy, pro-poor, pro-widow, pro-orphan or pro-illegal advocate, solely on the basis of wanting to criminalize murder of a member of that demographic, other advocates for it wouldn't accept them as that belief is assumed to be universal in a non-totalitarian state.
More options
Context Copy link
Fetuses can't be leftists, yes. This is why I love them.
(You can borrow this response, if you'd like. Chad face gif is optional.)
You can take this response elsewhere.
One week ban for yet another low-effort zinger. Just because it's snappy doesn't mean it actually adds value.
The hammer symbol is how people can tell it connected I guess.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I am pro-choice, but it seems like pro-lifers have a number of easy retorts to this argument:
Most pro-life people do care about and help prisoners, immigrants, the sick, the poor, etc.
Why would it make sense to prioritize the wellbeing of "morally uncomplicated" unborn children lower than the wellbeing of "morally complicated" people (i.e. people who bear a non-zero amount of responsibility for their circumstances)? Shouldn't the former be a higher priority, or at least an equal priority?
He is making an apples-and-oranges comparison. It is already well-established and widely agreed that it is wrong to kill prisoners, immigrants, the sick, the poor, etc. Pro-lifers simply seek to extend these protections to unborn children. If the law permitted the killing of immigrants or poor people without due process, I am sure pro-lifers would be just as upset about this as abortion, if not more so.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not a Christian so my opinion here is pretty meaningless. What strikes me about this quote is just how thoroughly drenched in progressive language it is. "Chronically poor", "question patriarchy", "challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege", "re-imagining social structures", "making reparations." There is nothing explicitly Christian in the quote, the only reference to Jesus mentions him only to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Christians. This post could have literally been pulled from /r/atheism. I don't think it would be inconsistent (what do I know) for a Christian to believe the above, but wouldn't a believing Christian and pastor generally phrase it in a Christian way? Where are the Bible quotes? The parables? References to God or Jesus? This guy just reads like Jean Meslier
After the reformation there's not a central authority that defines Christianity or who is allowed to be a pastor, and there are many churches that are completely progressive. This is a big fight currently in church denominations that were Christian enough to send missionaries internationally 100+ years ago, the international churches are still Christian and the US churches are progressive and they fight over the denominational statements.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Wow, I literally just saw this copy-pasted 3 times in the same reddit thread. Maybe it will finally overwrite the dialogue tree for the paradox of tolerance quote or "the cruelty is the point"
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know anyone in real life who is both pro life and anti those other things. I know people who are pro life and also believe in helping the poor and immigrants. I know people who are anti immigrant but fine with abortion. That these people happen to be part of the same coalition is due to the relative strength of their convictions on the different issues. Pro life are VERY pro life and weak on the other issues. Etc.
You could make a similar criticism of the pastor's position along the same lines. "You can advocate for bringing in criminals and low class immigrants and taxing the wealthy because you live far away from the lower classes and don't have to worry about crime, you work in a nepotistic industry that takes decades to assimilate into so you're not threatened by immigrant labor, and you are paid in esteem rather than cash so taxing the rich doesn't affect you. Very convenient that your political positions are both morally correct and don't force you to make any sacrifices in your own life." With a little wordsmithing that would be just as persuasive as what the pastor said.
More options
Context Copy link
The attack almost feels like category error, and I can't think of many people who would feel chastened by it or feel the need to respond to it. Christians are often doing a substantial portion of the charitable work in any given community. In my experience, the people running food banks, taking meals to shut-ins, visiting prisoners, and finding resources for single mothers are affiliated with one church or another. They might agree that some nebulous others are being bad Christians who only care about people they don't have to think about, but certainly none of them exist at their church and to the extent the people being targeted by this criticism even exist they aren't serious in the first place and aren't listening.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have previously discussed why I think the anti-death penalty stance is not just incorrect, but evil. This morning, I have received news that what I consider the most pro-crime administration of my lifetime has done something that I thought was unthinkable, and has commuted the death penalty sentences of 37 of the 40 federal death row inmates:
I am, as they say, triggered. For an administration filled with pro-crime sentiments and excuse-making for evil people, this probably tops the charts. I am disgusted by Biden's handlers. Here's the list of federal death row inmates. Absolutely none of the usual reasons for opposing the death penalty even begin to make sense for these guys. People worry about sentencing someone that's wrong accused to death - did they get it wrong in these examples?
They just somehow accidentally tabbed the wrong guy for murdering a prison guard? Really could have been anyone? Or perhaps you're concerned that it should only be reserved for the worst people, which is why Roof has to go. OK:
I'd love to hear the explanation for the parents of that preteen girl why their child's life wasn't every bit as sacred as the victims of Bowers and Roof. Why does he deserve a commutation? Perhaps it's because she was just an individual, so her life doesn't really deserve to be repaid with retributive justice, in contrast to Roof's victims. On an intuitive level, almost everyone knows that Dylann Roof deserves to die and that the only miscarriage of justice will be that it takes decades of fighting with demonic attorneys to get it done. Somehow, a bunch of otherwise decent people have convinced themselves that while Roof is sufficiently evil that he just deserves to die, there are probably a bunch of other death row inmates that don't. I believe this is because they're just not aware of the facts of those cases. Let's look at one of the commuted sentences:
How many people, knowing that information, would say that it's important for the President to spare these guys from execution?
There is no coalition that I have more sincere contempt for than people that spend their lives trying to avoid the execution of men like Kadamovas. There are so many issues where I grant a difference in preferences, values, evaluations of policies, or genuine mistakes. On this one, I am just sincerely angry at everyone that disagrees with me. The Biden administration has done so many things that I disagree with, but most of them still fall into that category of normal political disagreements. Denying the victims of these crimes the only justice that could have been done is evil.
Elect a Catholic, get Catholic stuff. Weird he's going to let those other three guys remain on death row. Not that I particularly care about Biden's ideological consistency.
I'm not in love with Biden doing this, but it doesn't make my top 100 list of complaints against him specifically or Democrats in general.
Catholicism has historically been pro death penalty and catholic societies have had rates of death penalty far higher than any society today. The issue isn't "catholic stuff", the issue is that the pope is barely catholic.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, Biden is famous for his respect for catholic teachings. Cant forget his anti abortion efforts!
Why do you think Biden, let alone his religion, has anything to do with this? The man has severe dementia. America has been ruled by a figure head for the last 4 years.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I dunno, how many Catholics are there? Obviously they don’t all support abolishing the death penalty, but it’s clear that a significant fraction do. They’ve got coherent reasons and everything. How are you so sure that they’re the ones endorsing evil?
Would you be more or less angry if he’d blanket-commuted all 40?
More options
Context Copy link
Doesn’t this create a pretty big opening for the remaining three to get their death sentences overturned on the basis of unfair or prejudiced application?
The power of pardons of the president is unbound. Acts of congress can't restrict it.
The power to commute a sentence is unbound, so outside of an aide dragging Biden's unconcious hand to draw the signature (and maybe not even then), there's no way to put Kadamovas back on the firing line.
But there's a cruel and unusual punishment argument as fewer and fewer executions are being actually brought, under Furman v. Georgia-style logic. I don't think there's five (or even four) votes in favor of Furman's logic today, and there are some process reasons that these particular appellants might not even get to a court hearing... but a lot of reasons that they're still going to spam pro se and maybe even seriously-funded attempts to bring that lawsuit forward.
Were there any uncharged murders for which he could still be tried?
Even the most sympathetic court would have to call that double jeopardy. Murdering all those people would fall under the same act framework in Blockburger.
Only two, Nick Kharabadze and George Safiev appear to have been murdered during the same act.
Rita Pekler was murdered while targeting George Safiev previously.
Meyer Muscatel and Alexander Umansky were murdered on different days as part of different acts unconnected to the other murders.
I wouldn't think Blockburger would necessarily preclude now charging any previously uncharged murder.
Under dual-sovereignty were CA inclined surely it could prosecute.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There’s also an equal protection under the law argument. If everyone else is getting their death sentence commuted as a matter of course except for you that doesn’t seem like a fair application of the death penalty, even if it was the result of a Presidential pardon.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, US justice hasn’t been properly retributive in a long time. I don’t know that it matters that these men will die of old age in prison instead of getting executed in a few decades.
The big thing is the three he didn’t commute- it seems like he should have commuted all forty(what’s the political consequences- he doesn’t get re-elected?).
Yeah, he refused to commute the three for whom it would be most politically inconvenient to commute: the Boston Marathon bomber, and two racists. Imagine the headline: "President Biden commutes sentence of white supremacists."
Whatever anti-death-penalty views our lame duck president holds, they very much do seem limited by political expediency.
Biden also pardoned some neonazis(there are a lot of them on federal death row).
Interesting. Perhaps the main factor really was “have people heard of this guy.”
Which really says a lot about equal justice — you’re victimized in a high profile case and the president may let your attacker be executed, but if no one’s ever heard of you who cares what happens to your assailant.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To be fair he should do this if you believe that politicians should try to live up to their campaign pledges. This is from 2020:
"Eliminate the death penalty. Over 160 individuals who’ve been sentenced to death in this country since 1973 have later been exonerated. Because we cannot ensure we get death penalty cases right every time, Biden will work to pass legislation to eliminate the death penalty at the federal level, and incentivize states to follow the federal government’s example. These individuals should instead serve life sentences without probation or parole."
Biden has been against the death penalty for some time, but was unable to eliminate it entirely. He should probably do it for all 40, but the 3 he hasn't are obviously problematic from the POV of some of his supporters, so he has compromised somewhat. That part can be critiqued if you like, but he has a democratic mandate to minimize the death penalty.
Whatever you think of it, he was democratically elected with a public stance against the federal death penalty. Elections do have consequences. As they will when Trump takes over and is more zealous about the death penalty. So it goes.
For what it is worth I am reliably informed Biden himself was pushing for this, while many of his advisors thought it would be a bad look for many of those on the list. In the end the compromise was to leave out the three who from a publicity pov were thought to be most problematic.
Also, many of your examples you are just axiomatically assuming they did get the conviction right. It is entirely possible (though not likely!) the wrong person was convicted. Why could a mistake not be made for the murder of a prison guard? Even just glancing over a few I see an example where one perp claims to have brain damage and another was inducted into dealing drugs at the age of 7, first arrested at 9 and was smoking crack before they were a teenager. You really can't see any reason why some people might think that even if they shouldn't be let free that maybe killing them is not helpful? That they might look at that person and think, they had no chance from the get go?
As well, part of the progressive stack argument is that the system will sometimes railroad individuals, and that law officers have been shown to sometimes lie to get convictions. Is your position there is absolutely zero chance one of these people is actually not guilty?
If you are angry about these people not being killed surely you must be aware there are people who are equally angry about the death penalty and would say that yes it is important for these people to be spared the death penalty. Thus it has no real bearing on anything beyond your own personal feelings. Whether you are angry about it or not has no bearing on whether it it is the right or wrong thing to do, or whether your argument is compelling or not.
I want to be clear, I am not against the death penalty myself. I think it is a useful tool when used judiciously. But I can certainly see why many people, Catholic or otherwise are against it in totality. I'm not angry at Trump for supporting more use of the death penalty and I am not angry at Biden for thinking it shouldn't be used. Both are reasonable understandable positions. Why be mad about that?
All the dumb stuff they say to pander to the base? No, that's the last thing I want them to do.
Unless they're pandering to me. In which case I'll be mad they didn't follow through.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't understand the point of this post, apart from venting about your outgroup. Sure, the omissions from the commutation list are notable for being obviously due to consideration for CW optics, but is there no explanation you can think of for being against the death penalty that is not being "pro-crime" or thinking that there is a possibility of punishing the wrong person? This is not the first time this topic has been discussed on this forum, or elsewhere, but you add no new arguments, dismiss the wealth of existing arguments for and against (seemingly out of conviction that tapping the "evil" sign about those you want to see executed should be all the argument one needs?), and do little to even encourage others to have a healthy discussion, by declaring your contempt and anger for those who disagree with you and throwing around colourful invectives like "demonic".
Biden was not acting "against the death penalty". He didn't commute the sentence of every person on death row, which that would imply. He was selective.
How is that not acting against?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The reinsertion of it into the public discourse with the commutation of 37 murderer's sentences makes it of broad public interest in a way that it usually isn't. The details of the action (including the arbitrary selection of three sentences not commuted) reinforces my position that this is actually all quite evil. A decade ago, I would have said that I understand my opponents even if I disagree with them. A couple years ago, I would have still acknowledged that while I disagree, there are points to be made around the level of certainty that should be required. Now, with the pardoning of guys like Kaboni Savage and Iouri Mikhel, I think this is a good time for people that were concerned about executing innocent men to reflect on whether that's actually what we're talking about or whether they've gotten sold a bill of goods by people with very different motivations than their own.
With regard to the anger, I have to grant that I find it genuinely challenging to react to something like this without it. To do so would feel completely hollow to the point of outright dishonesty on my part. I can attempt to have a polite, rational discussion with people, and I think I mostly succeed at doing so even when I'm frustrated or angry. Nonetheless, I don't think I would be doing anyone a service if I pretended that my views on this particular action are just coldly rational, driven by nothing but clear-eyed and consistent deontology. That doesn't seem to me to be a requirement for participating in discourse either; most people would not be affronted by a poster referring to Bashar al Assad as evil, even if they disagree, for example.
There is obviously some venting involved here. Even so, if someone's actual position is that it's good that Kaboni Savage has been pardoned, that Joseph Biden has demonstrated his wisdom and mercy, and that I'm mistaken about the evil being done, there seems like plenty of space to do so. I interpret the disinterest in doing so as less about my failings as a poster and more about how actually indefensible this executive action is.
Their sentences were commuted to life in prison with no possibility of parole. That's no pardon. In the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, that would have been the you-don't-get-to-be-a-martyr (unlike-your-brother).
More options
Context Copy link
I do not understand why you consider keeping your reaction to yourself to be dishonest - a forum is not a YouTube reaction video where the point is to feel a simulacrum of human connection by empathising with the uploader's expressions. There are things that can only be done in the textual format precisely because I don't need to know how you feel about the issue, and you don't need to know how I feel about it, and so we can exchange thoughts that otherwise never would make it past the wall of irreconcilable feelings on the issue between us. If you do however think that putting your feelings out there is necessary for your posts to not be "hollow", or something that looks like a number of seething people talking to each other while pretending to be automatons is unpleasant to you, there are still ways you could have done it that would have made more allowance for a conversation that is not one-sided to proceed. Just say that you are angry, and are finding it hard to stay level-headed, and then move on; and if you think that the rest of your post would not have enough to fill the hollow if that anger were filleted out of it, then maybe the post does not need to be made.
You may not appreciate what it would be like to post in an environment where this level of emotional polemic is levelled against you. I think I could take a shot, just for the impression: "The way I see it, the pro-death-penalty crowd has more in common with the common murderer than their supposedly 'pro-crime' opposition. They both agree that some of their problems are best solved by killing, and only disagree about the right targets. What they have is essentially a coalition of the bloodthirsty (as seen by the correlation between the pro-war, the pro-death-penalty, and the pro-gun-rights who get giddy fantasizing about shooting a black kid running away with their TV) and the victims and their relatives. I have nothing but contempt for the former, who cynically seduced the latter at their morally weakest." Would you feel particularly encouraged to engage in a discussion with an opening post like this? What if it were upvoted at +30 and bathed in supportive responses?
If this forum had a sizeable contingent of Alawites who had part of their family slaughtered by Islamists and saw him as the rampart that stood firm for years saving the rest of them from the same fate, while the world community was hypocritically slandering him and heaping apologia upon the "democratic rebels", or people like my Telegram-addicted relatives who believe that the people in Assad's "torture chambers" are largely the burn-infidels-alive-in-cages types, perhaps they would be.
What principle is fairly argued in a hostile frame like this? This is as much of a concession of space for disagreement as it would be if someone posting an anti-gun-rights diatribe, based on several instances of contemptible people being sold guns after some pro-gun decision (and perhaps some people disliked by the pro-gun group still not being sold one, too), invited people to argue for the wisdom and civic-mindedness of selling a gun to the most repulsive instance of a gun owner.
Yeah, I'd be fine with it. I have, in fact, argued in venues where I'm on the opposite side of the prevailing mood. I wouldn't say I feel welcomed, but my conviction on the matter is quite strong and I think my positions win on the merits. To wit:
I have no problem biting the bullet on that and saying that I agree that some problems are best solved by killing and we only disagree about the right targets. From there, I'm comfortable proceeding with the reasons that I think it is qualitatively different to execute men that have been tried by a jury of their peers and convicted of murdering a half dozen children than to fantasize about vigilante justice. I expect that some people will disagree. I even expect that some would do so passionately! This does not much dissuade me. I think that my actual arguments and the specifics of the individuals involved serve to clarify that claims of bloodthirstiness are just not correct.
I'll again bite the bullet and say that I think this is a fine argument tactic. If someone doesn't want to defend legal firearms ownership for convicted child rapists, then we're getting somewhere! They're agreeing that there are constraints to their position, that it's not categorical. Likewise, if someone that is generally against the death penalty agrees with me that maybe it's bad to offer categorical commutations for the worst people you've ever heard of, well, we're getting somewhere! Alternatively, they can bite the bullet and say that their only real problem with Biden's decision is that he didn't extend the same mercy to the remaining three, we are at least clarifying where we all stand. I am not actually willing to extend a friendly welcome to that position, but it exists and people can argue for it if they wish.
To return to your original objection:
The point is that the United States President just did something that I consider morally abhorrent as a discretionary executive action. This raises the salience of the issue and highlights special cases of it. Regardless of where someone settles on death penalty policy questions, this action should absolutely merit discussion. If you think I'm the wrong person to bring it up because I'm going to say that I'm pissed off and the people doing this are evil, I just disagree.
Why not? It is basically the stance of the Catholic Church. Why can't you be friendly to people who have opposing views to you (or is it just this specific view for some reason)? That's a real question, as that's the more interesting part in all this in my view. I am friends with people who believe all abortion should be outlawed AND people who think it is the woman's choice. And yes with both supporters and opposers of the death penalty. Why shouldn't we extend a friendly welcome to both? They are both pursuing what they think to be best morally. And without access to the underlying moral logic of the universe, I can't tell either one of them for certain they are right or wrong.
If it was proven to you tomorrow that the death penalty definitively increases the evil in the world and you now opposed it would you then be unable to be friendly to people who held your previous position?
I'm friends with many people that I disagree with, including on this topic. I wrote that I'm not willing to extend a friendly welcome to the position, and I stick by that. As covered, I don't think it's a simple difference, but one of the worst, most immoral positions that is within the realm of normal beliefs in the United States. I'm fine with being friendly with people that hold very bad positions, but I am not inclined to dress up my opinion of the position in niceties. My reaction to is comparable to my reaction to someone saying that minor-attracted people should be allowed to satisfy their urges or that it's actually fine to rob someone if they have more money than you. I'm capable of having the discussion, but my reaction is that these positions really are just evil and need to be defeated.
So the idea that any killing is wrong is one you equate with thinking pedophilia is ok? That seems wildly skewed. I'm not a Christian let alone a Catholic but I think the position that killing is wrong is definitely morally defensible certainly an order of magnitude more than the idea that pedophilia is ok.
Why do you think it is so evil to not want to kill people? I can certainly understand from a utilitarian perspective that you might argue the benefits outweigh the costs for certain people, or that executing people might be the lesser of two evils, but why is not wanting to do it literally evil in and of itself?
Generally I find your views very understandable (even if I don't always agree with them) but I am honestly somewhat surprised and confused that you hold such an absolute position on this that NOT wanting to kill people is itself evil.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I am reading reddit right now where every comment that isn't jeering like what you describe has been <deleted> by mods, and I could go to any other social media site on the planet to get exactly the same experience. This community was literally on reddit experiencing that posting environment. I do not understand this post.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I saw the news and read through this list, this table should comprise those inmates who killed multiple people:
This is insulting. A mass commutation for lesser crimes I would be more understanding of, but for the list of commutations to include Kaboni Savage, a person so befitting his name a court and jury in Philadelphia, who I think it's fair to assume would be highly sympathetic were there something to be sympathetic about, sentenced him to death. The office of President, because Biden didn't choose to do this, could hardly act in a more patronizing manner, and also, with the pardon of Savage, one more plainly ideological. It's pure political dunking, not a stand against the death penalty, else he would have issued one for every inmate. Nor was it a commutation based on actual severity, Savage was certainly more harmful than Bowers, and with the success of his drug dealing he might have negatively impacted more lives than Tsarnaev, who probably only missed a commutation because there would be universal uproar followed shortly by a guard strangling him in his sleep. Roof and Bowers, well, we all know why their sentences weren't commuted.
It is amusing to me that the only crime considered worthy of death is being on the wrong end of a current thing murder. Things aren’t looking good for our boy Luigi.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If Dylann Roof claims that he achieved sexual gratification while shooting could Biden commute his sentence too?
Btw - do you think that some of those would be rejected? Life without parole is crueler and harsher sentence than death in some conditions.
On the latter point, very few people in the position to get death penalties seem willing to accept them rather than appealing endlessly. I don't know what the actual numbers are on that front, but the desire to simply stay alive seems very strong.
For what it's worth on my end, I am personally opposed to deliberately creating conditions that are crueler and harsher than the death penalty. As I have probably mentioned in one of these threads where I hold forth on the death penalty, I don't view the death penalty as a way of maximizing harshness, but as a cap on the allowable suffering and extent of retributive justice meted out. Many people instinctually feel that a clean death is too good for some killers, and I understand that sentiment, but one of the reasons I so strongly support it is precisely to subvert the temptation to descend into inflicting excessive cruelty on the condemned.
It does occasionally happen, most notably with Gary Francis Powers, that a condemned prisoner asks to be executed and still needs to go through large portions of the appeals process for baffling reasons.
Gary Gilmore too. Subject of the (long-winded and overcooked) book The Executioner's Song.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Had it been universal it would have been very Catholic of him, which isn’t something you can often say.
Awhile back I learned from The Pillar that his marriage isn’t even canonically valid. He and Jill were married in some random non-Catholic chapel, and never obtained a convalidation.
Jill also has a still living husband from a previous marriage that was never annulled.
So forget the politically charged question of whether he ought to be denied communion for his many public statements that conflict with church teaching. He ought to be denied for the plain reason that many others are: he’s publicly living in sin.
More options
Context Copy link
How much can this be attributed to Biden? Does he really have a full grasp of all the decisions that are being taken in his name just now?
I can't wait for the tell-all memoirs to come out so we can find out who has really been in charge the last 4 years.
It's unbelievable they were trying to run Biden for another four year term.
Oh come on. Every gray cardinal wants a puppet ... it would have been amazing for the shot callers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As stated, I am disgusted by his handlers.
Either way, I expect that he is capable of understanding what a commutation is and probably understands what he's done. That he pardoned Hunter strongly suggests that he still has some measure of ability to make the decisions himself if he really wants to.
So you did, I missed that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would have grudgingly found it admirable if he'd reduced everyone's sentence based on pure conviction that the death penalty is invalid. That's what the pope would have had him do.
But leaving a few on there is just evil gloating that they don't oppose the death penalty, just want it applied by an NPR opinion poll, and only as vengeance for crimes against party-aligned ethnic groups.
Exactly. Either you are opposed to the death penalty OR you are saying only certain crimes are worthy of the death penalty and most but not all of these crimes were not worthy.
The question then is explain why
I think Biden on his own would have commuted every sentence except maybe Tsarnaev’s. His aides, I’m sure successfully pressured him out of pardoning Roof and Bowers because they honestly believe a white man killing black or Jew is a worse crime than the reverse; I’m guessing the neocons in the White House were opposed to commuting tsarnaev because terrorist.
More options
Context Copy link
To be fair, Biden still has a month left in office, and he could very well commute the other three sentences at a later date. It would actually make political sense to do it this way, assuming the following is true:
Republicans wouldn't have given him credit for ideological consistency if he had indeed commuted the other three sentences.
Bowers, Tsarnaev, and Roof are the only three people on this list the average American has ever heard of.
Accordingly, the commutation of any of these three sentences would, on its own, be bigger news than the commutation of all of the others.
Biden's critics will revel in pointing out the lack of consistency.
Commuting the three biggest names on their own, at a later date, will generate bigger headlines than if they were part of a blanket commutation.
So, commute the death sentences of 37 people no one has ever heard of and see what the fallout is. Then wait a few weeks and commute the remaining three on the eve of the inauguration. If the story gets lost in the shuffle then it's proof that nobody really cares much and that the political fallout from the other 37 commutations will be minimal, and that they were only really a story due to a lack of other news in the run-up to Christmas. On the other hand, if the story becomes a big deal, it will take some of the wind out of Trump's sails at a time when his inauguration would otherwise be dominating the headlines. Especially since he'd theoretically be responding to Republican criticism about his own lack of consistency, and this probably wasn't the kind of consistency that they had in mind. Not saying this will actually happen, just idle speculation on how Biden could play this to his advantage.
That sounds like 3D chess except it’s losing the entire way.
Step 1: Biden allows child killers to get out of death penalty but not others. Reaction: Biden doesn’t think child killers deserve death but if crimes have a political dimension then death penalty is fine. Not a good look.
Step 2: Biden folds to pressure leading to commuting the 3 not commuted today. Reaction: Biden would rather let guys off who deserve death because Biden decided a child killer should not be killed and when he couldn’t stand the fallout somehow decided to let other people off who deserve death.
Except this isn't about Biden; it's about Trump. Biden's reputation as a politician isn't going to improve regardless of what he does. He could have signed death warrants for everyone on the list and it wouldn't matter. So whether or not Biden is willing to commute the sentences of baby killers isn't the issue here. If he had excluded one more name from the list the Fox News comment section wouldn't be full of people trying to discern some kind of general principle, and had he commuted all the sentences they wouldn't be talking about how good of a Catholic he is. the fact that there's an incongruity on a list of pardons isn't something anyone is going to care about for more than a few days. As far as Biden is concerned, his political career is over anyway, so whatever he does now is ultimately irrelevant. And it's not like Democrats are still trying to prop him up as one of the party greats.
Signing an order commuting the sentences of three of the country's most notorious criminals and timing the press release so it hits just before Trump is about to take the oath of office is just a giant middle finger, nothing more. It would piss Trump off to no end to have his parade rained on like that, and provide a distraction from his time in the spotlight. It's not 3D chess as much as it is being petty, but Biden can afford to be petty at this point.
If Biden tried to do that, then it reminds me of the meme “Jokes on you I was just pretending to be retarded.”
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
I suspect that this was his original intent, but at some point in the process someone rushed into the room and said "sir, on Xitter they're saying that this means you're going to free [blah blah blah specific examples]", and he adjusted accordingly, but didn't see the ideological contradiction. Idiocy.
To be clear, even the explanation that it's about party-aligned ethnic groups, as @SteveKirk suggested doesn't get to a coherent set of principles. Let me introduce you to Kaboni Savage:
An infant and three other kids, presumably black, murdered over gangland bullshit.
No, the principle at play here seems to be whether the names involved were sufficiently well-known or not. There's no pattern to be found other than that, as near as I can tell. The commuted sentences include black, white, and Hispanic individuals. The victims denied justice are similarly broad across different ethnicities, across such identities as part-time postal workers, 12-year-old girls, the literal black baby mentioned in the above paragraph, and Russian immigrants targeted by their co-ethnic serial killers. The Boston bomber did not get a commute, which also puts a monkeywrench in the protection of aligned groups theory - it really does seem to be as simple keeping sentences if the public is actually familiar with the evils that were done.
Simple answer. Kabobi is black, so it doesn't count as a crime against blacks as a group
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