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 -
This is not purely self imposed: there's a reason it's the West Coast cities, and that's because they have to comply with the whims of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2018 the 9th Circuit ruled that enforcing anti-camping ordinances (better known as "rounding up all the bums") was cruel and unusual punishment, unless the city provided some kind of shelter that the homeless could go to. Since then lower courts have expanded the ruling considerably in a wide variety of ways that chalk up to making the homeless unpoliceable. In 2022 the 9th Circuit doubled down, ruling that the homeless can participate in class action lawsuits against cities that impose criminal or civil penalties on homeless.
Have the pro-homeless NGOs made hay out of this situation? Yes. Is there more Seattle and the rest of the west coast could do? Sure. But even in conservative Anchorage, Alaska (where it gets down to -20 F on the coldest winter nights) has a serious homeless problem, and that problem is named the 9th Circuit.
While I'm sure the 9th Circuit's decisions aren't ideal, this feels like cope to me. It reminds me of the people who still, still, blame "Reagan shutting down the asylums" for the current homelessness epidemic.
Things were a lot worse a couple years ago. Our new mayor Bruce Harrell has done a decent job clearing out some of the worst encampments, proving that it's not actually impossible after all.
I don't know what it would be cope for. I agree completely that local politics can make things much worse or much better, but it is still the fact that the 9th Circuit has tied the hands of any polity that wants to do something about the problem.
More options
Context Copy link
I am disinclined to blame Reagan, but deciding that crazy people should be free does seem like the primary root cause of people being accosted by belligerent vagrants.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
When they are brazenly smoking crack and dealing drugs right in front of a squad of police, the problem isn't the 9th circuit ruling.
It's not the 9th circuit (and it's not even the US), but if you go just a bit north then using hard drugs in a playground is not illegal.
(background info)
In San Francisco, we got a homeless pedophile advertising free fentanyl to kids from pre-k to 8th grade outside their school:
https://abc7news.com/san-francisco-free-fentanyl-sign-child-molester-adam-moore-found-guilty-stella-maris-academy-sf/14215982/
(In fairness, he did end up arrested and convicted, but only after public outcry.)
More options
Context Copy link
That law only had to be passed because BC decriminalized hard drug consumption. They fucked themselves, and then the court ruled that if you’re going to allow hard drug consumption then the risk to the addict means they should be allowed to do them in public. That’s obviously ridiculous, but if they had never decriminalized this farce wouldn’t even be taking place because police could just seize the drugs as illegal substances anyway.
That said, Vancouver is still much nicer than any major US West Coast City. Chinatown / Downtown East is a shithole, but the rest is largely fine.
That is a "I never thought the leopards would eat my face" situation. What the hell did they think would happen? Drugs are now legal (sorry, decriminalised), cops can't bust you for having them, so - what? all the junkies would politely stay at home out of sight to shoot up?
That guy in SF was lucky the cops eventually arrested him, upon first reading the story I had no idea why some of the fathers/male caregivers didn't organise to 'encourage him to relocate'. Why the hell he ever got out of jail in the first place I have no idea, but at least one parent did have a backbone:
I realise his attorney has to do the best she can for her client, but honestly, if she succeeds in getting him released once more, he's going to end up pissing off somebody who won't care about the poor little homeless guy being persecuted by the big, mean cops and he'll end up dead. He's safer in jail.
This is probably an explanatory factor for why it was in San Francisco and not other places.
More options
Context Copy link
It is, in fact, possible and consistent to have legal drugs which are illegal to consume in public. It's even enforceable, and in some cities (or parts of cities) enforced with respect to alcohol. The only reason there's a slippery slope from decriminalization to junkies shooting up in the street with impunity is that the powers that be want there to be one.
Worth a mention on the illegality and relative enforcement levels, some of the open container laws are enforced in with a very light touch as long as people aren't doing something too egregious. There are quite a few parks where open containers are technically illegal, but no one will give you shit for having a beer with a picnic. If the raison d'être of a get together is drinking, yeah, you're going to have an issue, but enforcement is ultimately discretionary and there is no law of the universe that the discretion has to be maximally retarded.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The cops would suddenly remember that it is actually possible to arrest people, the DA would recollect that it is possible to prosecute violence, and they would be fired for punching down at a disabled person having a mental health crisis. Also, there's a good chance that they're a pack of cowards even in the absence of the above.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link