site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 26, 2022

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.

26
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In times of extreme pressure, fairly normal people are relatively likely to commit crimes. If you are starving, theft is much more justifiable and likely than if you are doing fairly well. In the 1800s a fairly normal person could end up destitute in a way that is unlikely to happen to that person today. There were probably more orphans in 1850 who stole things but could be straightened out. The person who in modern day Sweden has to steal in order to not starve has made a series of poor choices and could find another source of food than theft. Most criminals in the modern west aren't even destitute. The gangster driving around in a car blasting music isn't turning to crime in order to survive, but because of an outlier personality. As the pressures to commit crime are reduced it is expected that criminals will become harder to rehabilitate as there will be more neurological causes to their crimes. A Soviet soldier who raped a woman in Berlin in 1945 could have had a normal psychology. The man in Berlin in 2022 who drags a random woman into the bushes in a park last night is probably severely deranged.

Therefore, long sentences become an increasingly good idea as society gets richer, as it stops people who are dysfunctional from interacting with society and stops them from reproducing.

I don't really buy this. It one of those things that sounds plausible (hard times = more crime)but possibly wrong, or unsupported by evidence. crime was higher in the 50s and 60s despite the strong economy. There is probably no correlation or a small uptick. The fact that there is so much crime during strong economic times , committed by wealthy people (Like the Enron and WorldCom frauds and also Theranos ). White collar crime is especially bad because it affects so many people (thousands of investors, pensioners, credit card fraud that affects thousands of card holders, etc.)

https://www.lawyersreadytofight.com/2020/06/15/how-economic-depressions-impact-criminal-behavior/

For example, numerous analyses have shown that during the Great Depression, the U.S.’s worst economic downturn to date, overall crime rates steadily decreased after an initial surge of violent crime at the start of the period. Crime rates continued to fall even as 68 percent of Americans were at or below the poverty line in the late 1930s.

Therefore, long sentences become an increasingly good idea as society gets richer, as it stops people who are dysfunctional from interacting with society and stops them from reproducing.

Agree. I think long sentences are good deterrents especially against organized, white collar crime. Someone can cite a study that maybe it's not that effective, but it's probably better than shorter sentences.