TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#274576: Mar 17th 2019 at 7:53:06 PM

[up] That is not even close to what QM says. If even a single electron interaction were different between the two events, a different outcome occurs, and that interaction can have cascading effects in something as ridiculously complex as the human brain. You are applying the science incorrectly.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#274577: Mar 17th 2019 at 7:53:34 PM

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness

Calculations show that collapsing wave functions of tiny structures in the brain can't explain the mystery of thought. The findings deal a sharp blow to "quantum consciousness," the idea that thoughts arise in the brain through the workings of quantum mechanics. By combining data about the brain's temperature, the sizes of proposed quantum objects, and disturbances caused by such things as ions, a physicist has concluded that possible quantum microprocessors decohere far too rapidly to orchestrate the firings of neurons.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/287/5454/791

Edited by CaptainCapsase on Mar 17th 2019 at 11:05:38 AM

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#274578: Mar 17th 2019 at 7:57:33 PM

I'm sorry, Capsace, but you are the one who brought up determinism, and you don't get to deflect the counterargument by linking to fallacies on Rational Wiki. That article itself states that its conclusions are largely speculation. Anyway, we still don't fully understand the mechanisms of consciousness — this is absolutely true. So your direct conclusion from the concept of determinism to the belief that consciousness has no component of free will is both a non-sequitur and is not supported in any way by scientific literature.

Edited by Fighteer on Mar 17th 2019 at 10:59:08 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#274579: Mar 17th 2019 at 7:58:06 PM

[up] How about the actual peer reviewed source they cited that I quoted? Like seriously, you're saying that bit about "oh quantum effects surely could have an effect on the brain" as if this hasn't been considered before. The math doesn't work out: the human brain is strictly within the classical regime, and thus human cognition is deterministic for all practical purposes. But we're kind of getting away from the overall point because, I assume, of your personal discomfort with the idea.

No, you're taking an overly narrow view of the word "punishment". The legal justice system does not use Merriam Webster as its authoritative reference on the use of these terms.

I originally said "punitive justice", and I've been using punishment as a shorthand for that, and punitive justice absolutely does mean what I've been saying it does. Also, my proposed approach deviates from punishment even as you define it since there's absolutely no requirement that a person has actually done anything, just that there's sufficient reason to think that they will do something is enough to mandate sanctions as a preventative measure.

Edited by CaptainCapsase on Mar 17th 2019 at 10:59:51 AM

Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#274580: Mar 17th 2019 at 7:58:31 PM

Is this really an argument that belongs in the US Politics thread though?

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#274581: Mar 17th 2019 at 8:00:51 PM

[up] Yes, to the extent that the US has a massive recidivism rate, a highly punishment oriented criminal justice regime, and is very illustrative of the continued cost of this mode of thinking where we sentence based on notions of justice and culpability rather than rational assessment of societal cost and benefit; we don't have the technology to accurately determine mental states yet, so obviously anything like Pre Crime Arrest is not yet on the table except for existing laws allowing preemptive investigation/arrest for possession of implements likely to be used in a crime, but we can look to examples of success in countries with far less punitive criminal justice systems compared to our own, and one of the things they're doing right is focusing on rehabilitation.


That's what I actually wanted to talk about, how we deal with offenders.

Edited by CaptainCapsase on Mar 17th 2019 at 11:11:24 AM

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#274582: Mar 17th 2019 at 8:02:33 PM

Yeah, QM and freewill seems kinda off topic. Anyway, I argue in favor of a broad view of the causes of mass violence in the global terrorism thread, so I wont cross post it here.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#274583: Mar 17th 2019 at 8:09:53 PM

@Fighteer: Cap is right on this one (let's just sidestep the whole quantum physics discussion). Deterrence doesn't work very well, because criminals are generally not rational actors (the huge, gaping flaw in On Crime and Punishment is that it's thoroughly mired in the Enlightenment assumption that humans are rational actors). Hence, it shouldn't be the pole star of the criminal justice system.

Edited by Ramidel on Mar 17th 2019 at 7:10:31 AM

archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#274584: Mar 17th 2019 at 8:10:11 PM

Whether free will exists or not doesn’t matter in the context of crime and punishment. For us to have a functioning legal system we have to assume free will does in fact exist.

That said, a focus on rehabilitative rather than punitive sentencing is an approach with proven benefits.

Edited by archonspeaks on Mar 17th 2019 at 8:11:06 AM

They should have sent a poet.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#274585: Mar 17th 2019 at 8:12:08 PM

I am not arguing against rehabilitative, rather than punitive, incarceration. I am saying that using mechanistic determinism as a rationale for it is a non-sequitur. You can make the same argument, with just as much justification, if you assume free will.

Edited by Fighteer on Mar 17th 2019 at 11:12:22 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#274586: Mar 17th 2019 at 8:12:59 PM

For us to have a functioning legal system we have to assume free will does in fact exist.

Not in a consequentialist moral framework; under utilitarianism for example there's no requirement for responsibility, you can just discard the whole idea of culpability and it works just as well; intent still matters under such a framework, but only to the extent that it predicts future behavior.

[up] It's especially important though in a world without free will; you can have a punitive justice system in a world with free will that is self-consistent; basically "people are punished because they do bad things of their own volition, and that's justice." You can't have that without free will, the case for punitive justice completely implodes.

Edited by CaptainCapsase on Mar 17th 2019 at 11:15:07 AM

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#274587: Mar 17th 2019 at 8:13:21 PM

[up][up][up]Actually, a professor of mine made the point that whether free will exists is helpful in figuring out the right approach to take regarding crime control. If you look at crime as a free choice, then you look at how to deter that choice and punish those who make it. If you look at it as a result of behavioral influences, then you're more likely to take a treatment approach to crime - find ways of ensuring positive social integration and mitigating antisocial influences on the individual.

The free will model won't lead you to such things as ensuring that streetlights are blue at night to reduce crime, for example.

Edited by Ramidel on Mar 17th 2019 at 7:15:32 AM

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#274588: Mar 17th 2019 at 8:15:29 PM

Yeah, I think it's kind of bullshit to think that it'd be okay to let a mass murderer go free just because they are really sorry and promise not to do it again even if they do mean it. That doesn't take into account the victims and those close to them. As Fighteer mentioned, it's not just about the mass murderer.
Not unlike when Goku let Vegeta go in Dragon Ball Z Abridged.

EDIT: Going back to my earlier question, if we don't have Free Will, but don't actually know we don't, then does it actually matter whether we do or not? In that scenario we're still making our choices, even if they aren't our choices, and the end result ends up the same either way.

Edited by sgamer82 on Mar 17th 2019 at 9:23:06 AM

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#274589: Mar 17th 2019 at 8:16:47 PM

Again, taking a behaviorist approach towards criminal justice does not absolve people of personal responsibility. It may shift the emphasis from punishing people for bad acts to understanding and dealing with the reasons why they committed those acts. To the extent that this provides better outcomes, I completely support it.

I still think that we are conflating many different aspects of philosophy and psychology and using them to make unsupported arguments. If we treat "free will" as a philosophy in which all behavior is completely non-deterministic — that is, each individual has absolute, unconstrained choice in all moments — then we get completely absurd conclusions when we try to apply that to real life. I know that many conservatives like to make those sorts of arguments, but let's not pretend that they are doing it based on a philosophical stance on free will vs. determinism.

Edited by Fighteer on Mar 17th 2019 at 11:19:11 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Robrecht Your friendly neighbourhood Regent from The Netherlands Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
Your friendly neighbourhood Regent
#274590: Mar 17th 2019 at 8:23:02 PM

You know what? I'll just come back to this thread when the philosophers have been shoo-ed out.

Angry gets shit done.
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#274591: Mar 17th 2019 at 8:23:51 PM

Quick way to tell: You're probably fine when you stop seeing fewer than a half-dozen or so multi-syllable words in one post.

Edited by sgamer82 on Mar 17th 2019 at 9:24:57 AM

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#274592: Mar 17th 2019 at 8:23:57 PM

[up][up][up] Which if we ever get to the point where we can essentially read minds with neuro-imaging technology severally limits our options to preemptively take action against probable threats (and since this is exclusively rehabilitation focused, it's not nearly as scary as the typical fictional portrayal of pre-crime) to society that could be identified through such screening techniques.

Edited by CaptainCapsase on Mar 17th 2019 at 11:24:08 AM

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#274593: Mar 17th 2019 at 8:24:27 PM

Everyone has the ability to choose. But not everyone is going to be able to enjoy the same set of choices.

Disgusted, but not surprised
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#274594: Mar 17th 2019 at 8:26:52 PM

Quick way to tell: You're probably fine when you stop seeing fewer than a half-dozen or so multi-syllable words in one post.

Let's be fair, that's hard in English. Just in that line: probably, seeing, fewer, dozen, multi, syllable. tongue

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#274595: Mar 17th 2019 at 8:27:51 PM

[up] Good point. Allow me to update that: You're probably fine when you stop seeing a half-dozen or so four-or-more-syllable words in one post.

[down] I still sincerely question why any of this is really relevant if the people involved at least believe they're making their own choices, which is really no different than having free will in the first place.

IMO, the healthiest way to frame things is to think as if your choices matter since you don't know the future, and your introspection has an impact on the outcome even if the choice isn't being made by you as much as its something that happens to you. Meanwhile, when judging others a behaviorist lens is appropriate, since you have no control over their actions, and hatred and anger tend to interfere with our ability to make rational judgments.
That's kind of what I mean. if we all believe our choices matter that we have free-will, even if we don't, then it doesn't actually matter if we don't because, in that situation, our actions are going to be the same either way.

Edited by sgamer82 on Mar 17th 2019 at 10:41:19 AM

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#274596: Mar 17th 2019 at 8:36:58 PM

@M84: That's an assertion, but I would argue the preponderance of evidence suggests that it's more accurate to say that decisions are a thing that happens rather than something that's made; our behaviors are a consequence of our brains, and we can make use of that information to guide us towards policies on sentencing that track to what's optimal for society rather than what we intuitively feel is "fair", but often leads to measurably worse outcomes than the alternative approach.


For the point about the mass murderer, you're correct that it's not just about the individual; in a society where belief in free will is widespread, people will of course demand blood, and for the sake of social stability it would be prudent to give it to them. In a society where people do not believe in free will, there's no rational reason to have ill will towards anyone, and it would seem to be unnecessary. Realistically, absent some sort of Brainwashing for the Greater Good technology, this sort of scenario is not going to arise outside of fiction, and that's an entirely separate conversation about criminal justice ethics.


[up] It's relevant because whether people think of crime as a willful choice or as a consequence of the behavioral and neurological influences affecting the perpetrator has a significant impact on how we mentally frame criminal justice issues, as @Ramidel said. If we collectively think of crime as a choice, it becomes necessary in many situations to inflict punishments on criminals simply to appease people's desire for retribution, even if those punishments have measurably worse societal outcomes than a non-punitive, rehabilatory approach.


IMO, the healthiest way to frame things is to think as if your choices matter since you don't know the future, and your introspection has an impact on the outcome even if the choice isn't being made by you as much as its something that happens to you. Meanwhile, when judging others a behaviorist lens is appropriate, since you have no control over their actions, and hatred and anger tend to interfere with our ability to make rational judgments.

Edited by CaptainCapsase on Mar 17th 2019 at 11:49:14 AM

Robrecht Your friendly neighbourhood Regent from The Netherlands Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
Your friendly neighbourhood Regent
#274597: Mar 17th 2019 at 9:06:44 PM

This seems like an interesting and entertaining discussion... For a thread that is not this one.

Angry gets shit done.
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#274598: Mar 17th 2019 at 9:08:39 PM

... I know I’m tired and therefore cranky but I still feel the need to say that this 2 page detour is off topic, circular, and irritating.

[up] Yeah sure.

Edited by wisewillow on Mar 17th 2019 at 12:08:56 PM

RedSavant Since: Jan, 2001
#274599: Mar 17th 2019 at 9:12:08 PM

Yeah, this is getting pretty ridiculous. Can we move on?

It's been fun.
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#274600: Mar 17th 2019 at 9:36:25 PM

If you guys really want to discuss practical problems in the American Justice system, what about how often White Collar Criminals (Such as Manafort, and probably Kushner and Individual One himself), can get off with very reduced sentences or no punishment at all, while we impose stiff penalties for blue collar crimes, that tend to disproportionately effect people of Color?

It's much more useful (and on topic) than going around in circles talking about free will, and the nature of life, the Universe, and everything.

Edited by megaeliz on Mar 17th 2019 at 12:39:13 PM


Total posts: 417,856
Top