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 -
Admirable, but by you quoting it, I needed <10 seconds to find the post via Google.
There's probably a lot to unpack there, since the undergirding factor of most if not all leftists is their ideology is collectivist and considers the primacy of the group's interests over the those of the members that compose it. So in the criminal justice realm, the harm a criminal does to an individual seems strictly less important than the harm done to the 'fabric' of the community and thus repairing the relationship between the offender and the victim is a smaller step in restoring the community to health and enabling the offender to re-enter the community and continue to contribute to the group.
(Or so I interpret the lefty approach to criminal justice)
And you nail it, this falls apart entirely when there is no coherent 'society' or 'community' and long term relationships in general are nigh-impossible to maintain.
Victims suffer the harm directly, in the meantime, and this does, indeed, contribute in the aggregate to a toxic social environment which is bad for the community. But does anybody genuinely feel as though they have a stake in the community that is somehow more important than their own personal loss?
Seems unlikely. The victim wants compensation for the loss, and maybe some psychic pleasure from seeing the miscreant suffer. After that, as long as said miscreant doesn't reoffend against them, personally, I doubt they care what eventually becomes of them.
Certain exceptions would exist, in the many cases where the offender is immediate family or friend, but in that case there IS an extant community (albeit a small one) which the individual victim might feel loyalty which overrides their own immediate interests.
The collectivist is starting with the assumption that the community is the most important factor, and how the victim's interest is slotted into that framework, which in this case comes down to the 'relationship' between the victim and the perp, and the victim and perp to the society, and how it is 'good' to restore those relationships rather than simply punish the perp and move on.
But if there is no community in which the victim has a stake, what exactly is the purpose of attempting to restore relationships that never existed and indeed the victim will presumably feel affronted if you're clearly subordinating their interests to a 'social good' that is hardly real.
I make no real normative claims here, but I do observe the while it is better for society to rehabilitate criminals where possible, the basic first step towards achieving that outcome is for someone to give a shit. And under current conditions there is not likely many who are invested enough to really care.
More options
Context Copy link