|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 03 2024 13:48 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2024 09:13 Magic Powers wrote:
The instances of Quran burning aren't happening in just any random place in public. The instigators do it deliberately in Muslim neighborhoods to incite a violent reaction. It's very much on purpose with the intent to get footage of angry Muslims. And it's usually right-wing activists doing it to fabricate outrage and controversy. These are the majority of cases.
I'm generally opposed to censorship, but in such instances it's undeniably preferable. We have people like that in the United States. They go around being assholes to police in the hopes the police will overreact and they can get a lawsuit out of it. They label themselves “first amendment auditors.” It’s perfectly legal because we think you shouldn’t be arrested for flipping the bird to a cop, even if their intentions are to be a dick. Edit: and I just want to be clear. You’re saying this should be banned because you just think people should stop being assholes and not because it might cause violence in the streets, right? Because the latter opinion is completely unhinged in my opinion.
I'll admit I have a difficult time assessing what's the right thing to do in that situation, I just think there's no correct answer at the moment. Let me elaborate.
Muslims in Western countries are a minority, and right-wingers are very well known for getting in their faces for little to no reason. Religious differences aside, they have a right to live unbothered lives like everyone else. Right-wingers sometimes just go in and selectively record footage for their outrage content. It's not like their targets are walking around with their own cameras ready to capture every right-wing instigation prior to the incident of Quran burning. So that particular recorded footage we see is just the tip of the iceberg of what they do. It's the only thing right-wingers let us see to fabricate outrage. We don't know how much they've been instigating prior to that because there's generally no footage of that. They don't let us see that. But it happens frequently, my own dad (who's rather conservative) has described some of these instigations being done by one of his brothers who (along with others) kept riling people up for years in neighborhoods such as those of Muslims. My uncle was well-known for this kind of behavior, being instituted multiple times over his outrageous behavior. He was suffering from a mental illness that exacerbated his radical right-wing views for decades and he passed away this year. Because of instances such as this sometimes Antifa show up to muscle out the right-wingers (sometimes they're simply a response to right-wing violence and other instigation. Antifa are not always the instigators, contrary to what right-wing activists want us to believe). Because the right-wingers just aren't giving up, they keep coming back to look for more trouble. What are people supposed to do? Of course they eventually turn violent against the instigators, and then we see the footage of that. We don't see anything of what came before that led to the violent response.
It's a complex issue and the law has trouble addressing it. So for now we have a bandaid "solution" that is the banning of Quran burning in public. It's not a perfect solution, but in my opinion the alternative can only hurt Muslims, not anyone else. For now. You may be right to be concerned in the long run, but right now people can legally criticize Islam in plenty of other ways in public spaces. Muslims are a small minority, they don't have the political pull to turn this specific ban into some massive censorship issue that could hurt a Western country at large.
|
On September 03 2024 18:25 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2024 15:45 Acrofales wrote:On September 03 2024 13:48 BlackJack wrote:On September 03 2024 09:13 Magic Powers wrote:
The instances of Quran burning aren't happening in just any random place in public. The instigators do it deliberately in Muslim neighborhoods to incite a violent reaction. It's very much on purpose with the intent to get footage of angry Muslims. And it's usually right-wing activists doing it to fabricate outrage and controversy. These are the majority of cases.
I'm generally opposed to censorship, but in such instances it's undeniably preferable. We have people like that in the United States. They go around being assholes to police in the hopes the police will overreact and they can get a lawsuit out of it. They label themselves “first amendment auditors.” It’s perfectly legal because we think you shouldn’t be arrested for flipping the bird to a cop, even if their intentions are to be a dick. Edit: and I just want to be clear. You’re saying this should be banned because you just think people should stop being assholes and not because it might cause violence in the streets, right? Because the latter opinion is completely unhinged in my opinion. They're somewhat the same thing. They cause violence in the street by being an asshole. The violent reaction is wrong, but if you go into a bar, pick the biggest guy there, walk up to him and start insulting him, his wife and his mother, there's a good chance you get punched in the face, then your friends jump in, his friends jump in and the bar gets trashed. Who threw the first punch? He did, but that doesn't mean you weren't looking for a fight and equally or even more culpable of the situation. Should Muslims react violently to burning the Quran? No. Neither should the big guy in the bar when you insult him. But both are very likely outcomes and this is knowledge the instigator has. Nobody is burning Qurans in their fireplace because they ran out of wood. They are burning Qurans for the express purpose of insulting Muslims. As for your cop example, I already said we won't find common ground on where exactly the line is. Generally speaking, verbal abuse at any person should, imho be illegal. I am not a fan of "disrespecting a cop" law (for instance the one in Spain), but feel that should just be generally covered sufficiently by a law against verbal abuse in general (such as in Germany or the Netherlands). The obvious advantage of the latter is that (1) it cannot be interpreted as broadly as "disrespecting a cop" can, and (2) it doesn't single out cops as some special snowflakes that need extra protection ahead of other people who you can freely insult. So for your example, it'd depend on what those "heroes" of the first amendment are yelling. If they're verbally abusing a police officer, fine them. But also fine that asshole in the bar who verbally abused the big guy to get him to throw the first punch. SCOTUS has ruled that Fighting words are not protected speech, but that wouldn't cover things like burning a book or a cross or a flag. So at least under US law there is a distinction made between the Quran burning example and your analogy. Why stop at Quran burning? Should cartoons of Mohammed be banned as they caused a similar brouhaha in Denmark? Just FYI, knowing that Muslims might react violently to certain offensive speech makes me even more inclined to defend the offensive speech. The Western world shouldn't acquiesce by abandoning its principles to placate people that haven't learned "sticks and stone may break my bones." That's offensive to me, if anyone cares. What a great example to set, though. Cause enough civil unrest and the government will cave and pass laws to appease you. Perhaps that's the same logic being followed by the anti-immigration riots in the UK? Yes, let's just incentivize this behavior. Whoever causes the most civil unrest gets what they want in order to prevent said civil unrest. No way this could backfire.
I dunno. It's a difficult decision. On the one hand, Muslims really shouldn't get that upset about people burning a book. On the other hand, they do, and the only reason people go out and burn books is because they get upset. It's a fairly obvious example of the Streisand effect, but it doesn't make it any less problematic.
That said, looking at that wiki, the US's definition of "fighting words" is extremely limited. It starts off well with that 9-0 Chaplinsky decision, but then it turns out that calling someone a "mother fucking fascist" or a "black mother fucking pig" are not fighting words. I have no idea about the context, and that seems extremely important here, but the fact that the Supreme Court even heard the argument makes it clear it (probably) wasn't someone getting offended by Chris Rock saying dumb shit on a stage for a laugh type of deal. So I am (probably) quite firmly on the side of that not being enough. So what's enough? I don't know. In general it seems the law needs to just keep it a bit vague so that judges can decide when "you're being a dick, you can't say that, have a fine" and in a different context for the exact same words/actions say "that was a hilarious parody, best thing I saw all week", and in another different context say "there was no need for that, but ehhh, whatever". And most of the laws seem to do that. Whether the judge should say "you're being a dick, here have a fine" or "there was no need for that, but ehhh, whatever" is not very clear. If a performance artist goes on stage and makes a statement about burning a Quran (it has been done to death, so maybe roll back time 10 years or so) maybe it should be allowed. And if a bunch of neo-nazis go into an immigrant neighbourhood and burn Qurans maybe it shouldn't. But what if Trump does it at a rally because Erdogan said something nasty about his hair? I dunno. So maybe don't unequivocally ban it, but leave the possibility of fines there. Something like that "fighting words" law, but maybe erring a bit more on "you're being a dick, have a fine" side 
|
On September 03 2024 21:45 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2024 18:25 BlackJack wrote:On September 03 2024 15:45 Acrofales wrote:On September 03 2024 13:48 BlackJack wrote:On September 03 2024 09:13 Magic Powers wrote:
The instances of Quran burning aren't happening in just any random place in public. The instigators do it deliberately in Muslim neighborhoods to incite a violent reaction. It's very much on purpose with the intent to get footage of angry Muslims. And it's usually right-wing activists doing it to fabricate outrage and controversy. These are the majority of cases.
I'm generally opposed to censorship, but in such instances it's undeniably preferable. We have people like that in the United States. They go around being assholes to police in the hopes the police will overreact and they can get a lawsuit out of it. They label themselves “first amendment auditors.” It’s perfectly legal because we think you shouldn’t be arrested for flipping the bird to a cop, even if their intentions are to be a dick. Edit: and I just want to be clear. You’re saying this should be banned because you just think people should stop being assholes and not because it might cause violence in the streets, right? Because the latter opinion is completely unhinged in my opinion. They're somewhat the same thing. They cause violence in the street by being an asshole. The violent reaction is wrong, but if you go into a bar, pick the biggest guy there, walk up to him and start insulting him, his wife and his mother, there's a good chance you get punched in the face, then your friends jump in, his friends jump in and the bar gets trashed. Who threw the first punch? He did, but that doesn't mean you weren't looking for a fight and equally or even more culpable of the situation. Should Muslims react violently to burning the Quran? No. Neither should the big guy in the bar when you insult him. But both are very likely outcomes and this is knowledge the instigator has. Nobody is burning Qurans in their fireplace because they ran out of wood. They are burning Qurans for the express purpose of insulting Muslims. As for your cop example, I already said we won't find common ground on where exactly the line is. Generally speaking, verbal abuse at any person should, imho be illegal. I am not a fan of "disrespecting a cop" law (for instance the one in Spain), but feel that should just be generally covered sufficiently by a law against verbal abuse in general (such as in Germany or the Netherlands). The obvious advantage of the latter is that (1) it cannot be interpreted as broadly as "disrespecting a cop" can, and (2) it doesn't single out cops as some special snowflakes that need extra protection ahead of other people who you can freely insult. So for your example, it'd depend on what those "heroes" of the first amendment are yelling. If they're verbally abusing a police officer, fine them. But also fine that asshole in the bar who verbally abused the big guy to get him to throw the first punch. SCOTUS has ruled that Fighting words are not protected speech, but that wouldn't cover things like burning a book or a cross or a flag. So at least under US law there is a distinction made between the Quran burning example and your analogy. Why stop at Quran burning? Should cartoons of Mohammed be banned as they caused a similar brouhaha in Denmark? Just FYI, knowing that Muslims might react violently to certain offensive speech makes me even more inclined to defend the offensive speech. The Western world shouldn't acquiesce by abandoning its principles to placate people that haven't learned "sticks and stone may break my bones." That's offensive to me, if anyone cares. What a great example to set, though. Cause enough civil unrest and the government will cave and pass laws to appease you. Perhaps that's the same logic being followed by the anti-immigration riots in the UK? Yes, let's just incentivize this behavior. Whoever causes the most civil unrest gets what they want in order to prevent said civil unrest. No way this could backfire. I dunno. It's a difficult decision. On the one hand, Muslims really shouldn't get that upset about people burning a book. On the other hand, they do, and the only reason people go out and burn books is because they get upset. It's a fairly obvious example of the Streisand effect, but it doesn't make it any less problematic. That said, looking at that wiki, the US's definition of "fighting words" is extremely limited. It starts off well with that 9-0 Chaplinsky decision, but then it turns out that calling someone a "mother fucking fascist" or a "black mother fucking pig" are not fighting words. I have no idea about the context, and that seems extremely important here, but the fact that the Supreme Court even heard the argument makes it clear it (probably) wasn't someone getting offended by Chris Rock saying dumb shit on a stage for a laugh type of deal. So I am (probably) quite firmly on the side of that not being enough. So what's enough? I don't know. In general it seems the law needs to just keep it a bit vague so that judges can decide when "you're being a dick, you can't say that, have a fine" and in a different context for the exact same words/actions say "that was a hilarious parody, best thing I saw all week", and in another different context say "there was no need for that, but ehhh, whatever". And most of the laws seem to do that. Whether the judge should say "you're being a dick, here have a fine" or "there was no need for that, but ehhh, whatever" is not very clear. If a performance artist goes on stage and makes a statement about burning a Quran (it has been done to death, so maybe roll back time 10 years or so) maybe it should be allowed. And if a bunch of neo-nazis go into an immigrant neighbourhood and burn Qurans maybe it shouldn't. But what if Trump does it at a rally because Erdogan said something nasty about his hair? I dunno. So maybe don't unequivocally ban it, but leave the possibility of fines there. Something like that "fighting words" law, but maybe erring a bit more on "you're being a dick, have a fine" side
Even aside from legal/moral arguments, I think psychologically it's the wrong approach to sort of shield people from offensive ideas. Things like safe spaces and trigger warnings have been shown to be counter productive. If you're actually exposed to offensive ideas it will harden you and maybe if it's done enough you won't be triggered enough by a quran burning to want to stab someone. We have the Westboro baptist church in the US that holds demonstrations and says hateful racist things. They are more of an irrelevant sideshow curiosity at this point than anything. I think in the US we have a tolerance for this sort of thing since it has persisted for so long. We just accept that religious nutjobs can say what they want and nobody will lose any sleep over it.
But I'll say again, my opinion on this matter could easily change with the circumstances. If it were half your town deciding to hold bigoted demonstrations against your race/religion it would be more oppressive than a small group of irrelevant nutjobs. So I can't really speak for Europe. As much as some of the woke mob like to insist that America is the most racist country in the world, I think it's exactly the opposite. I've had black friends that have said they have a harder go of things when they vacation abroad. I've also seen black footballers harassed with racist chants and had bananas thrown at them in European matches which is something that would be unheard of at a sporting event here.
On the whole, I would say this isn't really my main concern. I'm not losing sleep if X is enforcing other countries laws that don't allow people to call each other racists names. It's when they start to venture out and police "misinformation" that it becomes dicey, like COVID stuff or the Hunter Biden laptop story. It's sort of along the lines of "its better to find 10 guilty men innocent than 1 innocent man guilty." Censoring a journalist's factually true story is just really not good for democracy. I think the judge in Brazil is not really focused on going after the Tommy Robinson's of the world with his special powers.
|
Northern Ireland24430 Posts
On September 04 2024 05:00 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2024 21:45 Acrofales wrote:On September 03 2024 18:25 BlackJack wrote:On September 03 2024 15:45 Acrofales wrote:On September 03 2024 13:48 BlackJack wrote:On September 03 2024 09:13 Magic Powers wrote:
The instances of Quran burning aren't happening in just any random place in public. The instigators do it deliberately in Muslim neighborhoods to incite a violent reaction. It's very much on purpose with the intent to get footage of angry Muslims. And it's usually right-wing activists doing it to fabricate outrage and controversy. These are the majority of cases.
I'm generally opposed to censorship, but in such instances it's undeniably preferable. We have people like that in the United States. They go around being assholes to police in the hopes the police will overreact and they can get a lawsuit out of it. They label themselves “first amendment auditors.” It’s perfectly legal because we think you shouldn’t be arrested for flipping the bird to a cop, even if their intentions are to be a dick. Edit: and I just want to be clear. You’re saying this should be banned because you just think people should stop being assholes and not because it might cause violence in the streets, right? Because the latter opinion is completely unhinged in my opinion. They're somewhat the same thing. They cause violence in the street by being an asshole. The violent reaction is wrong, but if you go into a bar, pick the biggest guy there, walk up to him and start insulting him, his wife and his mother, there's a good chance you get punched in the face, then your friends jump in, his friends jump in and the bar gets trashed. Who threw the first punch? He did, but that doesn't mean you weren't looking for a fight and equally or even more culpable of the situation. Should Muslims react violently to burning the Quran? No. Neither should the big guy in the bar when you insult him. But both are very likely outcomes and this is knowledge the instigator has. Nobody is burning Qurans in their fireplace because they ran out of wood. They are burning Qurans for the express purpose of insulting Muslims. As for your cop example, I already said we won't find common ground on where exactly the line is. Generally speaking, verbal abuse at any person should, imho be illegal. I am not a fan of "disrespecting a cop" law (for instance the one in Spain), but feel that should just be generally covered sufficiently by a law against verbal abuse in general (such as in Germany or the Netherlands). The obvious advantage of the latter is that (1) it cannot be interpreted as broadly as "disrespecting a cop" can, and (2) it doesn't single out cops as some special snowflakes that need extra protection ahead of other people who you can freely insult. So for your example, it'd depend on what those "heroes" of the first amendment are yelling. If they're verbally abusing a police officer, fine them. But also fine that asshole in the bar who verbally abused the big guy to get him to throw the first punch. SCOTUS has ruled that Fighting words are not protected speech, but that wouldn't cover things like burning a book or a cross or a flag. So at least under US law there is a distinction made between the Quran burning example and your analogy. Why stop at Quran burning? Should cartoons of Mohammed be banned as they caused a similar brouhaha in Denmark? Just FYI, knowing that Muslims might react violently to certain offensive speech makes me even more inclined to defend the offensive speech. The Western world shouldn't acquiesce by abandoning its principles to placate people that haven't learned "sticks and stone may break my bones." That's offensive to me, if anyone cares. What a great example to set, though. Cause enough civil unrest and the government will cave and pass laws to appease you. Perhaps that's the same logic being followed by the anti-immigration riots in the UK? Yes, let's just incentivize this behavior. Whoever causes the most civil unrest gets what they want in order to prevent said civil unrest. No way this could backfire. I dunno. It's a difficult decision. On the one hand, Muslims really shouldn't get that upset about people burning a book. On the other hand, they do, and the only reason people go out and burn books is because they get upset. It's a fairly obvious example of the Streisand effect, but it doesn't make it any less problematic. That said, looking at that wiki, the US's definition of "fighting words" is extremely limited. It starts off well with that 9-0 Chaplinsky decision, but then it turns out that calling someone a "mother fucking fascist" or a "black mother fucking pig" are not fighting words. I have no idea about the context, and that seems extremely important here, but the fact that the Supreme Court even heard the argument makes it clear it (probably) wasn't someone getting offended by Chris Rock saying dumb shit on a stage for a laugh type of deal. So I am (probably) quite firmly on the side of that not being enough. So what's enough? I don't know. In general it seems the law needs to just keep it a bit vague so that judges can decide when "you're being a dick, you can't say that, have a fine" and in a different context for the exact same words/actions say "that was a hilarious parody, best thing I saw all week", and in another different context say "there was no need for that, but ehhh, whatever". And most of the laws seem to do that. Whether the judge should say "you're being a dick, here have a fine" or "there was no need for that, but ehhh, whatever" is not very clear. If a performance artist goes on stage and makes a statement about burning a Quran (it has been done to death, so maybe roll back time 10 years or so) maybe it should be allowed. And if a bunch of neo-nazis go into an immigrant neighbourhood and burn Qurans maybe it shouldn't. But what if Trump does it at a rally because Erdogan said something nasty about his hair? I dunno. So maybe don't unequivocally ban it, but leave the possibility of fines there. Something like that "fighting words" law, but maybe erring a bit more on "you're being a dick, have a fine" side Even aside from legal/moral arguments, I think psychologically it's the wrong approach to sort of shield people from offensive ideas. Things like safe spaces and trigger warnings have been shown to be counter productive. If you're actually exposed to offensive ideas it will harden you and maybe if it's done enough you won't be triggered enough by a quran burning to want to stab someone. We have the Westboro baptist church in the US that holds demonstrations and says hateful racist things. They are more of an irrelevant sideshow curiosity at this point than anything. I think in the US we have a tolerance for this sort of thing since it has persisted for so long. We just accept that religious nutjobs can say what they want and nobody will lose any sleep over it. But I'll say again, my opinion on this matter could easily change with the circumstances. If it were half your town deciding to hold bigoted demonstrations against your race/religion it would be more oppressive than a small group of irrelevant nutjobs. So I can't really speak for Europe. As much as some of the woke mob like to insist that America is the most racist country in the world, I think it's exactly the opposite. I've had black friends that have said they have a harder go of things when they vacation abroad. I've also seen black footballers harassed with racist chants and had bananas thrown at them in European matches which is something that would be unheard of at a sporting event here. On the whole, I would say this isn't really my main concern. I'm not losing sleep if X is enforcing other countries laws that don't allow people to call each other racists names. It's when they start to venture out and police "misinformation" that it becomes dicey, like COVID stuff or the Hunter Biden laptop story. It's sort of along the lines of "its better to find 10 guilty men innocent than 1 innocent man guilty." Censoring a journalist's factually true story is just really not good for democracy. I think the judge in Brazil is not really focused on going after the Tommy Robinson's of the world with his special powers.
I think you’re conflating different concepts and applications here a bit.
I mean until late game you’ve got a safe zone in MOBAs to chill out and grab a few items. The genre would probably suffer considerably if the entire map was a safe zone. Equally it’s probably not super fun to play it the opposite was true and you’re getting nuked over and over after just spawning.
Safe spaces and trigger warnings absolutely work as intended and are considerably better than the alternatives. I’ve seen them both work very well in practical application
The problem comes when one extends those bubbles to cover the entire of societal interactions, which I don’t personally agree with doing, and I think many folks on the left with me also don’t agree with either.
But cutting out a little ‘don’t be a dick’ enclave is grand, and doing so isn’t going to suddenly ruin people’s moral mettle.
While I broadly agree with your post overall actually, I do think this is a meaningful enough distinction.
Should you be able to burn a Quran, well IMO yes. Should my local university with a large Muslim segment of the student population let people interrupt Muslim prayer groups in such a manner? Well probably not. Hence the safe space/safe society distinction
|
How do you guys feel about laws against "antisocial behaviour"? It's adjacent, it's just that your not being a dick specifically to someone, you are just a dick in general.
For example on the metro/train in Australia there were signs warning that you could get fined for antisocial behaviour like listening to loud music, having your feet on the seats or not giving your seat to an elderly person.
I don't mind the concept in general since all laws are basically just ways to make people (not) behave in certain ways.
|
On September 04 2024 05:45 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
How do you guys feel about laws against "antisocial behaviour"? It's adjacent, it's just that your not being a dick specifically to someone, you are just a dick in general.
For example on the metro/train in Australia there were signs warning that you could get fined for antisocial behaviour like listening to loud music, having your feet on the seats or not giving your seat to an elderly person.
I don't mind the concept in general since all laws are basically just ways to make people (not) behave in certain ways.
I think its important to have "minimum decency" enforcement. Such laws should only apply to glaring behavior issues, where something is "technically not illegal but clearly very damaging". I wouldn't want it to be super strict. But it should be easy to agree on extremely fining/jailing people for extremely bad behavior.
|
On September 04 2024 05:45 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
How do you guys feel about laws against "antisocial behaviour"? It's adjacent, it's just that your not being a dick specifically to someone, you are just a dick in general.
For example on the metro/train in Australia there were signs warning that you could get fined for antisocial behaviour like listening to loud music, having your feet on the seats or not giving your seat to an elderly person.
I don't mind the concept in general since all laws are basically just ways to make people (not) behave in certain ways.
Seems dumb.
'Antisocial behavour' is a pretty nebulous term to try make laws around, and antisocial behaviour as an issue doesn't seem like something you solve with punishment.
Like as a kid in gradeschool I exhibited plenty of antisocial behaviour because I was a kid and I was acting out against stuff in my life. Punishing me for that behavior didn't solve any of my problems, it just made shit worse.
Imagining an early-20s person riding transit listening to music loud and punishing them for it seems wild. Either extreme of the hypothetical isn't solved with punishment - On one hand they could be a friendly ass metalhead and more than happy to turn it down if you ask them. On the other, they could be in an abusive relationship at home and at work, and mentally unable to accomodate social interactions during their transit and making themselves a safe space. Either way, punishing them isn't gonna make it better.
They could just be a dick, that's true. Punishment still wouldn't help that.
|
Punishment isn't meant to "solve your problems." It's meant to curtail the unwanted behavior. I think it's very effective at that. I think this goes back to a statement I made yesterday, "I'm also worried that the "truth" to these people is quite malleable and depends just as much on empathy as it does scientific rigor."
There's a lot of research in behavioral conditioning, reward and punishment, carrots and sticks. I suspect declaring that sticks don't work and only carrots work has a lot more to do with not wanting to punish people because it's mean than concrete evidence that punishment doesn't work. The reason the same kid keeps getting suspended from school and doesn't learn his lesson probably has more to do with him getting away with it 90% of the time and the punishment is sparsely applied.
|
Cruelty for the sake of Cruelty isn't the answer in any circumstance. If you look at the crime rate in America and then look at the amount of people we jail you wouldn't need some silly concept like empathy to question punishments effectiveness at curtailing crime.
If you're serious about considering scientific rigor you would look at examples of successful reductions in crime like camden and bogota and consider them. Sometimes giving a shit about people and looking at why they're exhibiting "anti-social behavior" is a good thing. Giving kids breakfast and lunch for free so they have some sort of nutrition and aren't hungry has shown success in combating behavior issues in school but that would be communism somehow.
|
On September 04 2024 08:16 BlackJack wrote:
Punishment isn't meant to "solve your problems." It's meant to curtail the unwanted behavior. I think it's very effective at that. I think this goes back to a statement I made yesterday, "I'm also worried that the "truth" to these people is quite malleable and depends just as much on empathy as it does scientific rigor."
There's a lot of research in behavioral conditioning, reward and punishment, carrots and sticks. I suspect declaring that sticks don't work and only carrots work has a lot more to do with not wanting to punish people because it's mean than concrete evidence that punishment doesn't work. The reason the same kid keeps getting suspended from school and doesn't learn his lesson probably has more to do with him getting away with it 90% of the time and the punishment is sparsely applied.
Sticks work plenty good. So do hammers, but not everything is a nail.
Also punishment is meant to solve the problem by means of curtailing unwanted behavior. If it wasn't meant to solve anything you wouldn't do it.
|
On September 04 2024 08:16 BlackJack wrote:
Punishment isn't meant to "solve your problems." It's meant to curtail the unwanted behavior. I think it's very effective at that. I think this goes back to a statement I made yesterday, "I'm also worried that the "truth" to these people is quite malleable and depends just as much on empathy as it does scientific rigor."
There's a lot of research in behavioral conditioning, reward and punishment, carrots and sticks. I suspect declaring that sticks don't work and only carrots work has a lot more to do with not wanting to punish people because it's mean than concrete evidence that punishment doesn't work. The reason the same kid keeps getting suspended from school and doesn't learn his lesson probably has more to do with him getting away with it 90% of the time and the punishment is sparsely applied.
You probably didn't mean to, but you just identified the problem with a lot of punishments. You were just giving California kudos for announcing their plan to punish people for being homeless. That's definitely a behavior choice we want to curtail.
|
United States42260 Posts
On September 04 2024 08:40 Sermokala wrote:
Cruelty for the sake of Cruelty isn't the answer in any circumstance. If you look at the crime rate in America and then look at the amount of people we jail you wouldn't need some silly concept like empathy to question punishments effectiveness at curtailing crime.
If you're serious about considering scientific rigor you would look at examples of successful reductions in crime like camden and bogota and consider them. Sometimes giving a shit about people and looking at why they're exhibiting "anti-social behavior" is a good thing. Giving kids breakfast and lunch for free so they have some sort of nutrition and aren't hungry has shown success in combating behavior issues in school but that would be communism somehow.
Eh, look at Singapore. There’s only so many times someone can be caned before they work out which rules aren’t worth breaking. If it’s not capricious and is part of a larger social rules based system then people can and do buy into it.
The problem isn’t that it doesn’t work. It’s that it’s not worth the cruelty.
|
On September 04 2024 09:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2024 08:40 Sermokala wrote:
Cruelty for the sake of Cruelty isn't the answer in any circumstance. If you look at the crime rate in America and then look at the amount of people we jail you wouldn't need some silly concept like empathy to question punishments effectiveness at curtailing crime.
If you're serious about considering scientific rigor you would look at examples of successful reductions in crime like camden and bogota and consider them. Sometimes giving a shit about people and looking at why they're exhibiting "anti-social behavior" is a good thing. Giving kids breakfast and lunch for free so they have some sort of nutrition and aren't hungry has shown success in combating behavior issues in school but that would be communism somehow. Eh, look at Singapore. There’s only so many times someone can be caned before they work out which rules aren’t worth breaking. If it’s not capricious and is part of a larger social rules based system then people can and do buy into it. The problem isn’t that it doesn’t work. It’s that it’s not worth the cruelty.
Yes, this is exactly how a rational person forms an opinion.
Does it work? Yes/no
If it works, is it worth the cruelty? Yes/no
Instead some people prefer to work backwards
Is this cruel? Yes/no
If it it's cruel then it's bad and it doesn't work.
Notice how you end your post talking about cruelty whereas Serm starts his post talking about cruelty. That's a major tell to how each of you apply your reasoning, imo.
|
On September 04 2024 11:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2024 09:16 KwarK wrote:On September 04 2024 08:40 Sermokala wrote:
Cruelty for the sake of Cruelty isn't the answer in any circumstance. If you look at the crime rate in America and then look at the amount of people we jail you wouldn't need some silly concept like empathy to question punishments effectiveness at curtailing crime.
If you're serious about considering scientific rigor you would look at examples of successful reductions in crime like camden and bogota and consider them. Sometimes giving a shit about people and looking at why they're exhibiting "anti-social behavior" is a good thing. Giving kids breakfast and lunch for free so they have some sort of nutrition and aren't hungry has shown success in combating behavior issues in school but that would be communism somehow. Eh, look at Singapore. There’s only so many times someone can be caned before they work out which rules aren’t worth breaking. If it’s not capricious and is part of a larger social rules based system then people can and do buy into it. The problem isn’t that it doesn’t work. It’s that it’s not worth the cruelty. Yes, this is exactly how a rational person forms an opinion. Does it work? Yes/no If it works, is it worth the cruelty? Yes/no Instead some people prefer to work backwards Is this cruel? Yes/no If it it's cruel then it's bad and it doesn't work. Notice how you end your post talking about cruelty whereas Serm starts his post talking about cruelty. That's a major tell to how each of you apply your reasoning, imo.
I'm still trying to figure out how you're anti "girl in UK fined for posting the N-word in an instagram post", but pro "Punish random australian on a bus with headphones too loud and people who disagree are too empathetic and afraid to use the stick".
The fact that you're moving on to why Kwark is a bad person is telling, imo.
|
On September 04 2024 11:25 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2024 11:13 BlackJack wrote:On September 04 2024 09:16 KwarK wrote:On September 04 2024 08:40 Sermokala wrote:
Cruelty for the sake of Cruelty isn't the answer in any circumstance. If you look at the crime rate in America and then look at the amount of people we jail you wouldn't need some silly concept like empathy to question punishments effectiveness at curtailing crime.
If you're serious about considering scientific rigor you would look at examples of successful reductions in crime like camden and bogota and consider them. Sometimes giving a shit about people and looking at why they're exhibiting "anti-social behavior" is a good thing. Giving kids breakfast and lunch for free so they have some sort of nutrition and aren't hungry has shown success in combating behavior issues in school but that would be communism somehow. Eh, look at Singapore. There’s only so many times someone can be caned before they work out which rules aren’t worth breaking. If it’s not capricious and is part of a larger social rules based system then people can and do buy into it. The problem isn’t that it doesn’t work. It’s that it’s not worth the cruelty. Yes, this is exactly how a rational person forms an opinion. Does it work? Yes/no If it works, is it worth the cruelty? Yes/no Instead some people prefer to work backwards Is this cruel? Yes/no If it it's cruel then it's bad and it doesn't work. Notice how you end your post talking about cruelty whereas Serm starts his post talking about cruelty. That's a major tell to how each of you apply your reasoning, imo. I'm still trying to figure out how you're anti "girl in UK fined for posting the N-word in an instagram post", but pro "Punish random australian on a bus with headphones too loud and people who disagree are too empathetic and afraid to use the stick". The fact that you're moving on to why Kwark is a bad person is telling, imo.
The only thing my post says about Kwark is that he analyzes things rationally. I’m not sure how that makes him a bad person? Maybe you are misinterpreting my post.
Preventing people from blasting music at others that are trapped in a metal tube with them is not the same as arresting someone for posting song lyrics on instagram. I think you should be allowed to criticize government officials at a city council meeting. But if instead of waiting for your turn to speak you yell out from the audience and create a disruption then you should be removed. Exceptions need to be made otherwise it would be chaos. I don’t think SCOTUS would disagree with me here.
|
Northern Ireland24430 Posts
Shouldn’t people just toughen up and learn some resilience to someone playing their shite music overly loudly on a bus?
|
On September 04 2024 12:14 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2024 11:25 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 04 2024 11:13 BlackJack wrote:On September 04 2024 09:16 KwarK wrote:On September 04 2024 08:40 Sermokala wrote:
Cruelty for the sake of Cruelty isn't the answer in any circumstance. If you look at the crime rate in America and then look at the amount of people we jail you wouldn't need some silly concept like empathy to question punishments effectiveness at curtailing crime.
If you're serious about considering scientific rigor you would look at examples of successful reductions in crime like camden and bogota and consider them. Sometimes giving a shit about people and looking at why they're exhibiting "anti-social behavior" is a good thing. Giving kids breakfast and lunch for free so they have some sort of nutrition and aren't hungry has shown success in combating behavior issues in school but that would be communism somehow. Eh, look at Singapore. There’s only so many times someone can be caned before they work out which rules aren’t worth breaking. If it’s not capricious and is part of a larger social rules based system then people can and do buy into it. The problem isn’t that it doesn’t work. It’s that it’s not worth the cruelty. Yes, this is exactly how a rational person forms an opinion. Does it work? Yes/no If it works, is it worth the cruelty? Yes/no Instead some people prefer to work backwards Is this cruel? Yes/no If it it's cruel then it's bad and it doesn't work. Notice how you end your post talking about cruelty whereas Serm starts his post talking about cruelty. That's a major tell to how each of you apply your reasoning, imo. I'm still trying to figure out how you're anti "girl in UK fined for posting the N-word in an instagram post", but pro "Punish random australian on a bus with headphones too loud and people who disagree are too empathetic and afraid to use the stick". The fact that you're moving on to why Kwark is a bad person is telling, imo. The only thing my post says about Kwark is that he analyzes things rationally. I’m not sure how that makes him a bad person? Maybe you are misinterpreting my post. Preventing people from blasting music at others that are trapped in a metal tube with them is not the same as arresting someone for posting song lyrics on instagram. I think you should be allowed to criticize government officials at a city council meeting. But if instead of waiting for your turn to speak you yell out from the audience and create a disruption then you should be removed. Exceptions need to be made otherwise it would be chaos. I don’t think SCOTUS would disagree with me here.
I was misinterpreting it, yeah. I only glossed over it.
WombaT touches on my feelings. I see no distinction between the two other than who is offended. You can no more readily control who you are on a bus with than you can what instagram shoves in front of you.
|
On September 04 2024 12:56 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2024 12:14 BlackJack wrote:On September 04 2024 11:25 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 04 2024 11:13 BlackJack wrote:On September 04 2024 09:16 KwarK wrote:On September 04 2024 08:40 Sermokala wrote:
Cruelty for the sake of Cruelty isn't the answer in any circumstance. If you look at the crime rate in America and then look at the amount of people we jail you wouldn't need some silly concept like empathy to question punishments effectiveness at curtailing crime.
If you're serious about considering scientific rigor you would look at examples of successful reductions in crime like camden and bogota and consider them. Sometimes giving a shit about people and looking at why they're exhibiting "anti-social behavior" is a good thing. Giving kids breakfast and lunch for free so they have some sort of nutrition and aren't hungry has shown success in combating behavior issues in school but that would be communism somehow. Eh, look at Singapore. There’s only so many times someone can be caned before they work out which rules aren’t worth breaking. If it’s not capricious and is part of a larger social rules based system then people can and do buy into it. The problem isn’t that it doesn’t work. It’s that it’s not worth the cruelty. Yes, this is exactly how a rational person forms an opinion. Does it work? Yes/no If it works, is it worth the cruelty? Yes/no Instead some people prefer to work backwards Is this cruel? Yes/no If it it's cruel then it's bad and it doesn't work. Notice how you end your post talking about cruelty whereas Serm starts his post talking about cruelty. That's a major tell to how each of you apply your reasoning, imo. I'm still trying to figure out how you're anti "girl in UK fined for posting the N-word in an instagram post", but pro "Punish random australian on a bus with headphones too loud and people who disagree are too empathetic and afraid to use the stick". The fact that you're moving on to why Kwark is a bad person is telling, imo. The only thing my post says about Kwark is that he analyzes things rationally. I’m not sure how that makes him a bad person? Maybe you are misinterpreting my post. Preventing people from blasting music at others that are trapped in a metal tube with them is not the same as arresting someone for posting song lyrics on instagram. I think you should be allowed to criticize government officials at a city council meeting. But if instead of waiting for your turn to speak you yell out from the audience and create a disruption then you should be removed. Exceptions need to be made otherwise it would be chaos. I don’t think SCOTUS would disagree with me here. I was misinterpreting it, yeah. I only glossed over it. WombaT touches on my feelings. I see no distinction between the two other than who is offended. You can no more readily control who you are on a bus with than you can what instagram shoves in front of you.
Shrug, I don't see it. I'm not sure how being against banning offensive speech means I also have to be against any measure to regulate noise in general
|
United States42260 Posts
On September 04 2024 12:43 WombaT wrote:
Shouldn’t people just toughen up and learn some resilience to someone playing their shite music overly loudly on a bus?
Eh, they shouldn’t have to. We should all be able to follow the basic rules of polite society in shared spaces. Caning is probably too far but let’s not place the burden on everyone else following the rules. Toughening up is for when there’s a crying baby on public transport. When an adult is deliberately causing the issue then tutting is called for.
|
On September 04 2024 13:04 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2024 12:56 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 04 2024 12:14 BlackJack wrote:On September 04 2024 11:25 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 04 2024 11:13 BlackJack wrote:On September 04 2024 09:16 KwarK wrote:On September 04 2024 08:40 Sermokala wrote:
Cruelty for the sake of Cruelty isn't the answer in any circumstance. If you look at the crime rate in America and then look at the amount of people we jail you wouldn't need some silly concept like empathy to question punishments effectiveness at curtailing crime.
If you're serious about considering scientific rigor you would look at examples of successful reductions in crime like camden and bogota and consider them. Sometimes giving a shit about people and looking at why they're exhibiting "anti-social behavior" is a good thing. Giving kids breakfast and lunch for free so they have some sort of nutrition and aren't hungry has shown success in combating behavior issues in school but that would be communism somehow. Eh, look at Singapore. There’s only so many times someone can be caned before they work out which rules aren’t worth breaking. If it’s not capricious and is part of a larger social rules based system then people can and do buy into it. The problem isn’t that it doesn’t work. It’s that it’s not worth the cruelty. Yes, this is exactly how a rational person forms an opinion. Does it work? Yes/no If it works, is it worth the cruelty? Yes/no Instead some people prefer to work backwards Is this cruel? Yes/no If it it's cruel then it's bad and it doesn't work. Notice how you end your post talking about cruelty whereas Serm starts his post talking about cruelty. That's a major tell to how each of you apply your reasoning, imo. I'm still trying to figure out how you're anti "girl in UK fined for posting the N-word in an instagram post", but pro "Punish random australian on a bus with headphones too loud and people who disagree are too empathetic and afraid to use the stick". The fact that you're moving on to why Kwark is a bad person is telling, imo. The only thing my post says about Kwark is that he analyzes things rationally. I’m not sure how that makes him a bad person? Maybe you are misinterpreting my post. Preventing people from blasting music at others that are trapped in a metal tube with them is not the same as arresting someone for posting song lyrics on instagram. I think you should be allowed to criticize government officials at a city council meeting. But if instead of waiting for your turn to speak you yell out from the audience and create a disruption then you should be removed. Exceptions need to be made otherwise it would be chaos. I don’t think SCOTUS would disagree with me here. I was misinterpreting it, yeah. I only glossed over it. WombaT touches on my feelings. I see no distinction between the two other than who is offended. You can no more readily control who you are on a bus with than you can what instagram shoves in front of you. Shrug, I don't see it. I'm not sure how being against banning offensive speech means I also have to be against any measure to regulate noise in general
Because you implied that one case is people being too empathetic when they should just give 'em the stick, and the other was them not being empathetic enough and giving too much (in this case 'any at all') stick.
You're tying the emotional element in with the comedian you posted ('You're offended! So what!") but then applying situations where you get to be the arbiter of when people being offended matters. It's inconsistent, if not just unfair.
I also disagreed with your assertion that the point of free speech is to allow people to say whatever without fear of punishment, but then you turned around and were suddenly pro-punishment on something trivial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
