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 -
There is a second reason for SOL besides fuzzy memories.
I’m not the same person I was 20 years ago. Honestly I’m relatively stupid compared to that person. But biologically it’s not anything close to the same molecules. I have different experiences. I’ve grown and in some ways gotten worse as a person. To prosecute someone for crimes they did 20 years ago is literally punishing a completely different person.
Maybe he did rape these people. His 20 something self deserved the punishment.
The problem with this argument in this case, as in my conversation with Walter below, is that Masterson doesn't admit his sins and offers no evidence of change.
The first step in the argument that "Well I'm a different person now..." is to say "Yeah, wow, can't believe I did that when I was younger, I'm horrified I did that, I'd never do that now!" Masterson has not offered anything like that. If he did, there's a good chance it would mitigate his sentence significantly.
Hell, I never raped anyone, and I can think of a dozen times I did something ten years ago that horrifies me today. I'm horrified at how I treated my girlfriends at 18, hell at how I treated my friends.
But I do see your point, inasmuch as the thirty year sentence is life-ending. Which is why I think we need to bring back punishments like public horse-whippings or locking men in the stockade in the middle of Los Angeles for a day and a night. A basic sense of justice rejects the idea that 40 year old criminal gets to walk free unpunished a public symbol that you can commit crimes and get away with it, a basic sense of justice rejects the idea of locking him away for the rest of his life at the taxpayer's expense. But seeing him publicly degraded, beaten? That satisfies all. It won't ruin his life or the lives of others, it will satisfy the victims that justice has been done. It will be a permanent embarrassing stain on his life.
More options
Context Copy link
Eh, I'm less persuaded by that argument. It's just a bit too galaxy brained for me. A bit too "The Ship of Theseus has a definite answer". And presenting evidence that you've grown and changed and regret who you once were could be presented at sentencing.
I mean, that is an area probably ripe for some sort of codified reform. Sentencing is notoriously all over the place.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link