site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   29245 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 19, 2024

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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

The Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act was passed by the legislature in November, allowing fines and imprisonment for people who refuse to comply with police orders not to consume drugs in certain public places.

The nurses association argued the act, which has yet to come into effect, would violate the Canadian Charter in various ways if enforced.

(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.)

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:

Moore recently had a confrontation with a parent from the school and now faces a misdemeanor battery charge for that.

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.

Moore's attorney tells us, the two charges he faces are normally "cite and release" and that nothing would have happened if Moore had set up camp and posted his signs in the Tenderloin.

"And this guy is annoying, because he moves around this particular area a lot," Erica Franklin said. "And he's annoyed quite a few people. And I feel like because of that reason, because it's sort of an isolated area of San Francisco, that he's being treated differently."

I had no idea why some of the fathers/male caregivers didn't organise to 'encourage him to relocate'.

This is probably an explanatory factor for why it was in San Francisco and not other places.

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?

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.

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'.

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.

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