site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32408 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

that cancel culture does not work as well as on famous, rich targets: they get more chances

I agree but I think you could expand that to really anything. The law does not work as well on famous rich targets. Two presidents and a vice president have just been found to be illegally in possession of classified documents and nothing is likely to happen. Britney grinner was rescued from jail in Russia for a crime she committed in exchange for an arms dealer so notorious that his nicknamed the merchant of death. And this was for a drug possession crime that US citizens are locked up in US jails for right now.

While the rich and famous may have more leeway they are not invulnerable, and once they are disciplined both them, and onlookers, can experience the chilling effect for whatever it is they did.

motivated by profits in the end, more so than ideology.

These are the same thing.

Rogan ,Jordan Peterson , and Fox News views being heavily promoted

none of these people stand to be a significant change to the status quo, and all of them know their place. Rogan didn't like vaccines and and trans women in womens sports. Peterson did like being FORCED to say pronouns, but would say them if asked. I am not going to address fox news.

Two presidents and a vice president have just been found to be illegally in possession of classified documents

They have been found in possession, but they have not been found in illegal possession, because they are unlikely to have acted with the requisite criminal state of mind.

It doesn't require intent for a pleb. A standard part of classified handling that everyone gets taught before they are allowed to touch anything.

Please follow the links in the article to the relevant statutes

And this was for a drug possession crime that US citizens are locked up in US jails for right now.

Actually, how many people in US actually are jailed for a possession of a less than a gram of weed? Does it actually happen in practice?

The number of people in prison for marijuana possession is the same as the number of wrongfully convicted people on death row. They might exist but the number approaches zero. And yet these two potentially non-existent categories somehow loom large in the popular dialogue around these topics.

is the same as the number of wrongfully convicted people on death row

These are probably similar numbers but I don't think they're similar ratio. Roughly:

Given the sheer difficulty of actually exonerating someone, the accuracy of convictions seems suspect.

I admit that "jailed for drug possession" is pretty much a myth/meme that Libertarians like to drop - including myself in the past.

Thank you. I think I was conflating "innocent people are not being executed" with "innocent people are not on death row". Seems I was wrong.

Very few to none. Almost all significant jail time for marijuana is for intent to distribute. Most states which haven't made it legal decriminalized it in small quantities or don't actively prosecute cases as of decades ago.

Its easy to assume that based on public info, but it is still an assumption. "Nearly 40% of law enforcement agencies around the country did not submit any data in 2021 to a newly revised FBI crime statistics collection program" https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/06/14/what-did-fbi-data-say-about-crime-in-2021-it-s-too-unreliable-to-tell

I'm willing to believe its extremely rare for simple possession to be the only thing a person is in jail for, but the threshold for intent to distribute is at like .5 oz. A half ounce of weed is more likely to be a purchase by a person who doesn't want to go buy weed every week than someone who plans on selling 1 gram at a time. Really makes me wonder how many people in jail for selling weed were ever even selling weed at all.

Half an ounce could really go either way. You're underestimating how much weed dealing is really, really petty nonsense.

Intent to distribute/felony possession is different from state to state, but many are in the pounds and few (maybe none) are as low as half an ounce. Federal numbers have been absurdly large for a while since they're mostly interested in international trafficking.

Fair point about felony thresholds, it seems only 5-10 states care whether you have a half ounce or not (based on this ). The thing is though, i'm pretty sure if you are caught going between states with weed you can get hit with trafficking in those states, so even if the feds don't care, a local PD could decide to be a dick about how they write up that 1/2 ounce.

Yes, but adding "intent to distribute" to a simple possession charge is routine.

Is it? I thought I heard some urban legend about how "intent to distribute" was something they could tack on just on the basis of sheer mass, but that it still required meeting some minimum threshold. But the drug war hasn't been something I've paid attention for a long time.

Its common for people with extensive previous records or who are involved in violent crime. I don't think that's what people are thinking about when they hear someone went to jail for Marijuana for years.

The ones that talked back to the cop who found it.

I suspect that these might have gotten a ride and an overnight stay, but are there people who actually serving jail sentence for less than a gram of weed right now? How many of them?

Cops don't determine sentencing, or even charging for that matter.

If they got caught with less than a gram of wax in an airport? Straight to jail.

This doesn’t seem to be true. See eg. https://www.laattorney.com/amp/what-if-i-get-caught-with-weed-while-flying.html which claims that it basically never happens in California. Does it happen anywhere else?

I am really interested in actual figures. Are we talking about 10 000 people currently being imprisoned for possessing less than a gram of weed? 1000? 10? 2 unlucky guys in Kentucky?

In practice in California itself or California to Nevada there is no worry transporting small amounts the TSA doesn’t care in the slightest neither do the local cops they might ring up. Maybe some states could book you, but those are getting fewer and fewer.

the TSA doesn’t care in the slightest

I know California cops don't particularly care. But I sure would have thought that the TSA would enforce Federal drug laws. A gram of cannabis wax is probably a big problem to get caught with in an airport.

Waxes and other concentrates are legally distinct and way more illegal even in some "cool" states, so yeah i would not advise travelling with your dab pen.

how many people in US actually are jailed for a possession of a less than a gram of weed?

I don't know about a gram, but for solely marijuana possession with no prior sentences, a very small amount in state prison and now none in federal prison, Biden pardoned them 3 months ago. However to my knowledge the federal law hasn't come off the books so anyone can still be charged. Overall enforcement by police is way down though.

Good point on the pardon.

Yeah, I know it’s on the books, but it doesn’t matter. We have a lot of laws are on the books but don’t really get enforced in a way books specify. What I really am interested about is actual figure. I know that this is really rare, and most incarcerated people are there for much more serious offenses, but how many people actually currently serve a sentence for simple possession of less than a gram of weed? 1000? 100? 10? Nobody?

Overall enforcement by police is way down though.

It was never that high. There was a report in the early 2000s where the median weed offender in state or federal prison had over 100 lbs (perhaps kgs, I'd have to re-check) in their possession. That is median, not mean.

Federal is the key word there. Most weed offenders are at the state level

No it included both.

you edited your post

I did not.

Why not? It equally counts people caught with .000000000001 lbs. Going by median is how you diminish outliers.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats