site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31307 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 15, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think it’s clear we spend too much resources monitoring and judging crime, and not enough actually punishing

In addition to what @HaroldWilson said, which is a correct summary of the literature, this seems to be factually incorrect; we apparently spend relatively a lot on punishing, and relatively little on policing:

It stands to reason that a society with ~1 homicide / 100,000 needs to spend proportionnally less on prisons than the one with 6/100,000.

Note that, because the United States is more violent than the EU, you might expect that the US would have a higher level of spending — but it wouldn’t obviously suggest there should be a different mix between police and prison.

I beg to differ. You need police for traffic violations and murder, but you can’t send people to prison for parking tickets.

But surely that doesn't explain much of the discrepancy. While murder carries relativity long sentences, few people are in jail for homicide.

And, my point is NOT that current spending is unreasonable. Rather, I am making an empirical claim. Note also that the US apparently has a pretty low number of police per capita, compared to most Western European countries outside Scandinavia. So, I don’t see much evidence that the US spends too much on policing and not enough on punishment.

Re that block quote, is it from the linked article?

Realize that “Homicide” and “parking tickets “ are representative of heavier and lighter forms of criminal behaviour respectively.

The data is all over the place on this police/prison ratio. If you go by homicide rate, the US is not spending nearly enough on prison.

One thing missing in this discussion is the cost of judging them, which are major costs the ‘catch a few and pound’ strategy is supposed to alleviate. Seems pointless to go through the trouble of making sure they’re guilty if they’re not going to be punished/incapacitated anyway. ‘if it weren’t for the lawyers, old boy, we wouldn’t need lawyers’.

Re that block quote, is it from the linked article?

Don't you have ways of figuring that out? The answer is Yes.

The data is all over the place on this police/prison ratio.

What data are you referring to?

If you go by homicide rate, the US is not spending nearly enough on prison.

I am really not sure what you are trying to say. What, precisely, are you saying the US should spend more money on, and why?

One thing missing in this discussion is the cost of judging them, which are major costs the ‘catch a few and pound’ strategy is supposed to alleviate.

But isn't "catch a few and pound" precisely what you are advocating when you say, "it’s clear we spend too much resources monitoring and judging crime, and not enough actually punishing"? And I am skeptical that, in a system in which something like 98% of convictions are via plea bargains, the cost of judicial proceedings is all that high.

More murders (higher homicide rate) should equal more time spent in prison (therefore higher prison costs, in a rich society squeamish about the death penalty). Accordingly, all else equal the US should spend 6 times more of its gdp on incarceration than western europe (instead of 0.5% : 0.2%, 2.5 : 1). Policing is a separate issue. I am arguing for longer sentences, which does not require more police. As Gary Becker says: “maximize the fine and minimize surveillance. “

I am arguing for longer sentences, which does not require more police

I see. I misunderstood and thought when you said " it’s clear we spend too much resources monitoring and judging crime," that you meant we spend too much on policing.

More murders (higher homicide rate) should equal more time spent in prison (therefore higher prison costs, in a rich society squeamish about the death penalty). Accordingly, all else equal the US should spend 6 times more of its gdp on incarceration than western europe

Why 6x more? As I understand it, US crime rate other than homicide isn't that much higher than those countries, and homicide arrests make up a very small percentage of violent crime, let alone all crime.

I think the comparison is fairer if you just take europe's big four : germany 0.8 france 1.3 UK 1.1 italy 0.5 compared to US 6.4 , hence the approximation six to one.

Due to it being precisely recorded, as well as its inherent larger impact than other forms (loss of life), homicide rate is a good proxy for the damage crime as a whole inflicts on a society.

I still don't get where you get 6-1.

Homicide rate might well be a good proxy for the damage caused by society. but what does that have to do with how much it costs to incarcerate those convicted of homicide, versus those convicted of other crimes?

More comments

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