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 -
Have you read this ACX article on crime?
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/prison-and-crime-much-more-than-you
It goes into detail on the effectiveness of deterence via harsh punishment. Yes, people have a sense of cause and effect, but I don't think all people have an accurate sense of how dangerous something can be. Or, put another way, is someone who has trouble with rational decision making and risk analysis more, or less likely to commit a crime? If more likely, why try to prevent crime via a mechanism that they do not pay attention to? It seems counter productive.
My own thinking is that rational decision making is lost in passionate crimes like assault and murder (hence why there is no evidence of the death penalty working as a deterent, and why the ACX article finds little deterence to violent crime in general with harsher penalties). On top of that, I believe that rationality is offset by desperation (does the chance of getting caught and charged outweigh the cost of a necessity or livelihood? Are you able to think more or less clearly when agitated or stressed?), and offset by opportunity/pressure/confidence, such as being pressured by friends, normality in the community, or thinking there is a good chance of success.
What I meant was that crime as a cost/benefit calculation pays better when you aren't well off and resources are scarce. If you are well off, you stand to lose a lot more (plus you are usually in a better position to make a rational decision), and committing a crime is no longer a viable option. A stable life with supports (including material things as well as important people) is less likely to lead to crime. That's the hypothesis, anyway. There is a correlation between lack of wealth and crime. Of course, there are lots of complicating factors and poverty is a hard problem to solve.
More options
Context Copy link