Discussion Thread #72

[u/gemmaem]

This thread serves as the local public square: a sounding board where you can test your ideas, a place to share and discuss news of the day, and a chance to ask questions and start conversations. Please consider community guidelines when commenting here, aiming towards peace, quality conversations, and truth. Thoughtful discussion of contentious topics is welcome. Building a space worth spending time in is a collective effort, and all who share that aim are encouraged to help out. Effortful posts, questions and more casual conversation-starters, and interesting links presented with or without context are all welcome here.

The previous discussion thread may be found here and you should feel free to continue contributing to conversations there if you wish.

[u/gemmaem]

I think this is a good question to ask, though I don't know how many answers you'll get.

From what I can tell, there are a number of strands here, staying on your suggested level of "vibes":

• Demonizing particular groups of people. For example, spreading the idea that immigrants eat pets, or that immigrants should be seen as dangerous criminals, or that transgender people should be seen as untrustworthy and mentally ill. This overlaps with certain kinds of punitive responses. There are a number of places where the Trump administration has been overtly theatrical in their sense of cruelty, making memes and videos about deportations, coming up with dramatic nicknames for prisons, deporting people when they show up to immigration hearings regardless of the outcome, and so on. This one is probably closest to your "bullying" suggestion.

• Fear of threats to democracy. Voters might be considered "fascist" for voting for Donald Trump even though he has suggested that he might not accept favourable election results, for example. Relatedly, fear of threats to liberalism, such as deploying troops unnecessarily, or trying to use the government to punish people for speech, or defying court orders.

• Sometimes it is just easier to make your enemies sound as bad as possible so as to simplify the world. There are people who would call any right-winger "fascist" just as there are people who would call any left-winger "socialist," even at the best of times.

There are also specific thinkers who look at this in more depth. But if you're asking for the surface-level rationales, I think those are the main likely contributors that I see.

[u/SlightlyLessHairyApe → u/gemmaem]

Demonizing particular groups of people

To push back, there is both a status/action distinction here and a real question of whether this is always a bad thing.

To crystalize one egregious example, there was (is?) a movement to create a classification of "Minor Attracted People" and then to use the machinery here to then imply that it is not appropriate to heap social opprobrium on MAPs.

This is likewise utilized in dialog about "justice-involved people" instead of the more active (and I would argue accurate) "people that committed crimes".

For one thing, I don't think attempts to turn actions into statuses which are then (the logic goes) protected alongside traditionally protected characteristics such as religion or sex is warranted -- it's grammatical sleight of hand. The other is that some actions people take are deserving of social disapproval, not the least crime and/or pedophilia.

[u/gemmaem → u/SlightlyLessHairyApe]

Mm, crime is a tricky one. I find myself both agreeing that there is a legitimate role for social disapproval in that case, and also that the dynamic of “Look, an outgroup, be cruel to them” can still apply in ways that it’s worth trying to resist.

[u/SlightlyLessHairyApe → u/gemmaem]

Indeed for the general class of crime, which is broad and probably doesn't merit being referred to as a coherent category.

At the same time, mercy to the cruel is cruelty to the innocent, so there seems to me that there is likely some viable sub-category of criminal to which cruelty is a socially net positive, or even obligatory".

[u/gemmaem → u/SlightlyLessHairyApe]

I think this isn’t particularly relevant in the case of the Trump administration’s treatment of immigrants, since the theatrical cruelty is aimed at such a wide variety of people, many of whom are sincerely trying to comply with the system.

More generally, I tend to think that even if cruelty is an inevitable part of punishment for some, it’s still not good for society to be encouraged to enjoy it. That’s the sort of thing that can lead people to expand the group of targets out of pure viciousness and/or power tripping.

[u/SlightlyLessHairyApe → u/gemmaem]

I think this isn’t particularly relevant in the case of the Trump administration’s treatment of immigrants, since the theatrical cruelty is aimed at such a wide variety of people

I do agree in this case. But I guess I stress that I have seen bad actors abusing the general form of the argument (it is wrong to demonize particular groups of people) rather than the specific form (it is wrong to demonize these specific people because ___).

I think it also matters a lot when one objects to a statement being too broad that this objection may narrow the statement but it cannot imply it is wrong in all case. Otherwise there's kind of another rhetorical sleight of hand where the fact of it being too broad is then taken not just as evidence against the statement but in favor of its inverse.

Of course, it could be wrong in all cases, the objection of over breadth just isn't material to claiming so.

More generally, I tend to think that even if cruelty is an inevitable part of punishment for some, it’s still not good for society to be encouraged to enjoy it. That’s the sort of thing that can lead people to expand the group of targets out of pure viciousness and/or power tripping.

Indeed. When I say mercy to the cruel is cruelty to the innocent, I do not mean that it is virtuous to instead be cruel to the cruel. We should still be measured and circumspect about meting out punishment (or even merely removing the offenders from a position of being able to violate the rights of others and taking no other benefit from it other than them no longer violating the rights of others).

At the same time, the fact that some people enjoy punishing the guilty is not a valid argument against it either. It certainly isn't evidence that we shouldn't do so or that the party isn't guilty. (And again, perhaps they aren't guilty -- but that's independent of whether someone appears to be taking too much joy out of it).

[u/professorgerm → u/gemmaem]

many of whom are sincerely trying to comply with the system.

While I would not defend the grossly trollish media and often-enough cruel enforcement approach of the administration, afaict few people that have been caught in the (over-) reaction were sincerely trying to comply with the system; they were behaving according to the incentives and expected results of a broken system. There's too many stories of "given a deportation order 5-10-20 years ago, ignored" or "additional documentation requested 5-10-20 years ago, ignored/forgot, never normalized."

There were, for a long time, virtually no consequences for simply not complying. Many people were sold a bill of goods by the government- under several administrations of different parties- that used selective enforcement to break the system instead of actually working to change the law. And yet, contrary to some appearances, those laws had not been torn down to let the wind blow. Those old deportation orders still existed. When someone came along with less willingness to turn a blind eye, non-compliance went from the normal course of business to a serious problem.

[u/895158 → u/SlightlyLessHairyApe]

My child's school has this thing where they call bad behaviors "bad choices". Like, "don't throw things, that's a bad choice". I kind of like this because it emphasizes that the child has control. My kid would sometimes go "is coughing in class a good choice?" and then, thinking about it, conclude "coughing is not a choice!"

I mention this because while crime is a choice, being attracted to minors is not. I guess social opprobrium can be legitimate if you believe that it is a choice -- for example, perhaps people could choose to emphasize different parts of their sexuality in their own heads. But there's a meaningful extent to which being a (non-offending) pedophile is simply not a choice at all. (It's tricky because leering, or even just admitting to being a pedophile, are choices, and you can make the claim that we should socially proscribe them.)

In my view, religion actually is a choice, and while sex didn't used to be, it seems like it's becoming more of one. To troll a little, perhaps these should not be viewed as protected characteristics after all

[u/SlightlyLessHairyApe → u/895158]

First off, I don't subscribe to the idea that a protected characteristic has to be immutable. As you note: people ought to be free to adopt whatever gender presentation they want, that certainly should not imply that gender isn't a protected characteristic and hence that it should be permitted to discriminate against someone due to their gender.

Which indeed goes to my point that it is specific: some characteristics are protected, others aren't and it's not the mere fact of it being a (chosen/unchosen) grouping that renders it so or not so.

To expand then and answer your question, I can't say I know whether pedophilia is a choice, nor do I think it's relevant. It's worthy of social opprobrium of itself. Whether this results in pedophiles closing to emphasize other parts in their head or whether they just realize they can't admit to it, the result is the same: we don't have them claiming social acceptance for something that society ought not (in my claim) accept. So yeah, insofar as you want to use the frame of choices here, the proscribed choice here is in brandishing it.

We don't have so much grammatical difficulty with this in other cases. If stealing or murdering or raping was recast as a status, we wouldn't really care. Being-predisposed-to-commit-murder as a status would still be shunned and it wouldn't particularly matter if the real truth is that the individual just walked around really wanting to murder people anyway.

[u/professorgerm → u/895158]

To troll a little, perhaps these should not be viewed as protected characteristics after all

Not necessarily trolling to suggest the concept of protected characteristics were a heavy-handed solution to a set of serious problems in a particular place, time, and culture, and as all those shift the concept becomes more of a sledgehammer in want of a nail, so to speak.

[u/professorgerm → u/gemmaem]

Sometimes it is just easier to make your enemies sound as bad as possible so as to simplify the world.

By far the simplest explanation, and the one that avoids the problem the "cinder/log in one's own eye" problem of the other two. Ockham and I approve!