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 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?
He's not acting based on moral opposition to the death penalty.
Less-than-maximum opposition is still opposition, though. Compare abortion clinic picketers, or Israel boycotts.
It's like being about to commute someone's sentence, and being told "I'll give you this cheeseburger if you don't". If he took the cheeseburger and accordingly didn't commute the sentence, it's obvious that the initial decision to commute the sentence wasn't based on any strong principle.
"Because people would get upset about it" is an extremely weak reason to change his mind if he really did it out of moral opposition to the death penalty, weak enough that I'd question how significant that opposition was. (For that matter, I doubt more people would get upset about it than did over pardoning Hunter. And if they got mad, so what? He's out of politics; they can't hurt him.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That doesn't follow either. At best you can say he is not ONLY acting based on moral opposition to the death penalty.
Indeed as far as I know he was talked out of commuting all of them as a compromise. So while he is acting on moral opposition to the death penalty he is letting that be partially compromised by politics. That perhaps loses him some points for following his principles no matter what, but does not change that the act is based upon moral opposition to the death penalty in the first place. As pointed some of those commuted were neo-nazis. Not exactly his political allies.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
I don't know. I was trying to write up a coherent response, but I think @ControlsFreak did it better below than what I was accomplishing. My reaction to it is as innate as it is against pedophilia (which is not to say that the two positions are equally bad, just that it seems equally obvious to me). This is absolutely not a utilitarian position and a contrary utilitarian argument wouldn't change my mind even a little bit.
If you don't know then that is the only answer you can give.
I know pacifist Quakers who do literally believe all killing is wrong. I don't agree with them, but I do understand their position and I don't think I would call them evil, though I do think their position can lead to negative outcomes (if you have to kill someone in self-defence/defence of others, not doing so is probably net negative in my view).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But not as, like, a rational, 'seeking Truth' sense of "morally defensible", right? I had thought that somewhere between here and here we shed the concept that moral concepts were rationally defensible, determinable, etc. in some sort of objective way, and it was instead just people's emotions/feelings/vibes. So when you ask:
you're actually asking, from your meta-ethical perspective, something like, "Why is three green?" You have completely hidden first principles that make your question incoherent and impossible to answer. That really undercuts what I think is an implied argument from incredulity, where one asks what is merely a difficult question from a position of first-impression skepticism, being open to a plausible answer and interpreting a lack of a complete and convincing answer as evidence against the position. No, your prior meta-ethical position is such that this question is impossible to answer, either for or against, because you actually think (when pressed) that your own question is an incoherent one. You're not asking it to rationally grow closer to some truth of the matter.
...or have you changed your mind, and you now think that there is some sort of concept of "evil in and of itself"? If so, what would that concept be?
Are we revisiting this again? I am asking why he thinks this is evil based upon whatever HIS moral intuitions/precepts/constructions. Just because I don't share them doesn't mean I can't understand them in other people.
I know people who believe all killing is wrong and I understand why they do and why they think that position is good. @Walterodim thinks (I believe) that someone who believes all killing is wrong is evil and I am trying to see what drives that belief from HIS perspective.
My moral positions don't have a bearing here because I don't share either his moral position or theirs, but I can understand theirs and am now trying to understand his. I am asking him essentially to explain in his meta-ethical perspective (as you put it) why he thinks this. The answer may be he doesn't know, which is a fine answer.
If someone tells you three is green, then asking them to explain why is three green is a reasonable question for which they may or may not have an answer. It just is, is a reasonable answer, as is because God said so, or because (insert 500 words about synethesia). But without asking the question I don't know if i will get an answer that helps me understand that person better or not.
You can understand someones meta-ethical system without having to share it. I am not asking to get closer to THE truth I am asking to get closer to understanding HIS truth. Because he is regular poster I get quite a lot of value out of reading.
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
More options
Context Copy link
I am reading /r/politics 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, and fully appreciates it. 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