5 ms·

The entire concept of "setting an example" seems like a bit of fascism that has snuck its way into liberal democracy.

RobertoG 5y ago
Is that liberal democracy thing some time in the past when this kind of things didn't happen? what period would be that?
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > Is that liberal democracy thing some time in the past No, it's an ideal that some countries claim to aspire to, and some seem to be moving away from. (Those lists of countries are not as disjoint as they might seem).
  - thirdwhrldPzz 5y ago
    Some people claim to aspire to. It’s always people. Biden is a person. Putin is a person. Hiding behind language like country or state is part of the propaganda and mind virus such people rely on, insuring agency defers to concept. They’re self serving people, not concepts.
john_moscow 5y ago
Such things are indicative of the general zeitgeist in the society. If most people were hard workers, knowing how to count money and expected accountability, you would see more sentencing for embezzlement and nobody would care about some random dude's shitposting. Sadly this isn't the case in the West anymore. Most people come from a rather meaningless and mind-numbing job, turn on the TV and expect to be entertained. And seeing your neighbor from a different political camp punched in the face is the oldest form of entertainment the humanity came up with. Look at many social justice programs now: "group X has been suffering historically, so let's now make group Y suffer in some other way to make it fair" as opposed to "let people from X and Y build shit together for the sake of prosperity". This way will inevitably bring poverty, people will eventually wake up and start asking the right questions about the dropping quality of life and affordability of assets, but it can take decades more of arguing on who's shitpost was more offensive.
- heavenlyblue 5y ago
  > Look at many social justice programs now: "group X has been suffering historically, so let's now make group Y suffer in some other way to make it fair" as opposed to "let people from X and Y build shit together for the sake of prosperity". Citation needed.
  - endominus 5y ago
    It's not especially hard to find examples. A couple off the top of my head, as I was looking into the education system in the States recently. "African-Americans have had worse access to educational resources, so let's shut down gifted programs for everyone." https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/08/us/new-york-gifted-and-talented-education-program/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/08/us/new-york-gifted-and-ta... "The population of certain high-status schools is not demographically identical to the population at large, so let's stop using objective criteria in university admissions." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harvard-test-optional-sat-act-scores-college-admission/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harvard-test-optional-sat-act-s... "Girls do worse in math class than boys, so let's change the curriculum to be less about math and more about social justice." https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=13658 https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=13658
    - heavenlyblue 5y ago
      Your abstracts do not even correspond to the content of the articles, how can I take you seriously after this? The last article doesn’t mention word “girls” or “female” at least once on the page.
      - endominus 5y ago
        In what sense do they not correspond? The gifted program was being shut down because schools like Stuyvesant admitted very few black students. See, for example, Forbes' take on the subject; https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliewexler/2019/08/28/to-address-inequity-lets-do-more-than-eliminate-gifted-and-talented-programs/?sh=75fa37fa55ae https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliewexler/2019/08/28/to-add... Likewise, there is an ongoing court case about Yale (which is also spilling over into discussions about other schools) discriminating against students by race. See https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/13/yale-illegally-discriminates-against-white-and-asian-students-justice-department-says.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/13/yale-illegally-discriminates.... They have been trying to transition to more subjective methods of student filtering for a while now to hide this better. Rather than include an entire bibliography of the context behind the change, I just linked to that change being enacted, since that's what I considered the important thing being asked for (the proof of systems being made more unfair/objectively worse). I can't give you bulletproof explanations of why these changes are being made - no one can. No one has come out to explicitly say, "We're changing the math curriculum because [group] is doing worse and we need to tilt the field in their favor." It's always couched in "better world" language - it's more just, more equitable, allows students to learn better, etc. But the claim was that social justice reforms are more focused on destroying something providing value to a privileged group than trying to come up with ways for everyone to achieve better outcomes together. That's what these changes, in general, show. Instead of having the opportunity to go to a specialized gifted program, even if it's harder for people of some races to get in, no one gets one. Instead of auditable, comparable, and clearly defined criteria for college acceptance, it's entirely subjective and based on the Admissions Office's biases. Instead of a math class that teaches actual math, even if some students find that boring or difficult, we have whatever California is doing.
bruhvinston 5y ago
I wouldn't attribute it to fascism, because the concept works in any social group and was used throughout history. Even Mao said something like "Punish one, educate millions." I think the true conflict is about the dignity of the individual. Is it permissible to do a disproportionate amount of harm to one person to bring about consequences that further the goal? I'd say no. And that also includes bringing less than appropriate punishment.
- thethimble 5y ago
  I think the whole purpose of punishment is to discourage others from committing the same crime - not to punish an individual for the sake of retribution. If you think about it, retribution is pretty petty. It doesn’t accomplish anything and a civilized society should do away with it. The only reasonable basis for punishment then is the “educate millions” rationale above. To the extent that it is effective in establishing rails for a stable society, I think it’s morally acceptable to do so. You accurately summarized the crux of the argument: it’s all about your views on the dignity of the individual.
  - Serenacula 5y ago
    If it actually worked, then maybe this would make sense, (though I believe the negative social effects of that approach FAR outweigh the dubious positive). But in a case like this, where it was precisely a LACK of thought that marked it as a crime, it honestly seems absurd to me. It's like prosecuting someone for tripping over their shoelaces in a supermarket.
bilbo0s 5y ago
has snuck its way into liberal democracy Not that I disagree that setting an example is a part of liberal democracies, but at least in the US, we've been "setting examples" since forever. It's just that as a society we deem most of the people who the courts have historically used to "set an example" expendable.
teawrecks 5y ago
IANAL but it seems like "setting an example" is synonymous with "setting a precedent", which is a concept that seems fundamental to any legal system, even for civil cases. Companies press charges against every slight infringement on their trademarks because if they don't, they're implicitly setting a precedent that the behavior is ok. If you aren't actively setting precedents, then legally it's the same as saying, "we're ok with anyone and everyone doing this all the time." Doesn't matter what governmental structure you have, as a society, we set boundaries in order to define the world we want to live in.
- porknubbins 5y ago
  Precedent in common law systems applies more or less only to determining what the law is and is not really related to sentencing more strictly or leiniently (ie making an example of someone), so I don’t think they are synonymous.
- bennysomething 5y ago
  The problem I have with send a message style justice is that it means the person is being treated as an individual they are being used for some sort of societal manipulation. The aim of written law is to attempt to treat everyone the same before the law I think this undermines that concept.
- Nasrudith 5y ago
  It doesn't set a precedent though, it is just arbitrary beating of a scapegoat. So called "tough on crime" laws are a bad kneejerk idea but at least they are relatively consistent compared to "fuck this person in particular because I feel like it" of arbitrary example setting. The whole point of precedent being seen as a positive in law is because it makes legal outcomes more predictable.
ibejoeb 5y ago
I'd argue that "setting an example," or specific deterrence, has lessened in severity with the rise of liberal democracies. The notion is about as old as law itself. There was some pretty brutal stuff way back. Still have some big contemporary outliers like electrocution in some states in the US, but that's going away steadily. Anyway, the notion of deterrence, in the United States, if you consider this a modern liberal democracy, is codified in the federal sentencing guidelines: https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2021-guidelines-manual/annotated-2021-chapter-1 https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2021-guidelines-manual/annot... irrelevant technicality: I suppose setting an example could also be construed as general deterrence based on a instance of specific deterrence.

Is that liberal democracy thing some time in the past when this kind of things didn't happen? what period would be that?

dane-pgp 5y ago
> Is that liberal democracy thing some time in the past No, it's an ideal that some countries claim to aspire to, and some seem to be moving away from. (Those lists of countries are not as disjoint as they might seem).
- thirdwhrldPzz 5y ago
  Some people claim to aspire to. It’s always people. Biden is a person. Putin is a person. Hiding behind language like country or state is part of the propaganda and mind virus such people rely on, insuring agency defers to concept. They’re self serving people, not concepts.

john_moscow 5y ago

Such things are indicative of the general zeitgeist in the society. If most people were hard workers, knowing how to count money and expected accountability, you would see more sentencing for embezzlement and nobody would care about some random dude's shitposting. Sadly this isn't the case in the West anymore. Most people come from a rather meaningless and mind-numbing job, turn on the TV and expect to be entertained. And seeing your neighbor from a different political camp punched in the face is the oldest form of entertainment the humanity came up with. Look at many social justice programs now: "group X has been suffering historically, so let's now make group Y suffer in some other way to make it fair" as opposed to "let people from X and Y build shit together for the sake of prosperity". This way will inevitably bring poverty, people will eventually wake up and start asking the right questions about the dropping quality of life and affordability of assets, but it can take decades more of arguing on who's shitpost was more offensive.

heavenlyblue 5y ago
> Look at many social justice programs now: "group X has been suffering historically, so let's now make group Y suffer in some other way to make it fair" as opposed to "let people from X and Y build shit together for the sake of prosperity". Citation needed.
- endominus 5y ago
  It's not especially hard to find examples. A couple off the top of my head, as I was looking into the education system in the States recently. "African-Americans have had worse access to educational resources, so let's shut down gifted programs for everyone." https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/08/us/new-york-gifted-and-talented-education-program/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/08/us/new-york-gifted-and-ta... "The population of certain high-status schools is not demographically identical to the population at large, so let's stop using objective criteria in university admissions." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harvard-test-optional-sat-act-scores-college-admission/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harvard-test-optional-sat-act-s... "Girls do worse in math class than boys, so let's change the curriculum to be less about math and more about social justice." https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=13658 https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=13658
  - heavenlyblue 5y ago
    Your abstracts do not even correspond to the content of the articles, how can I take you seriously after this? The last article doesn’t mention word “girls” or “female” at least once on the page.
    - endominus 5y ago
      In what sense do they not correspond? The gifted program was being shut down because schools like Stuyvesant admitted very few black students. See, for example, Forbes' take on the subject; https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliewexler/2019/08/28/to-address-inequity-lets-do-more-than-eliminate-gifted-and-talented-programs/?sh=75fa37fa55ae https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliewexler/2019/08/28/to-add... Likewise, there is an ongoing court case about Yale (which is also spilling over into discussions about other schools) discriminating against students by race. See https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/13/yale-illegally-discriminates-against-white-and-asian-students-justice-department-says.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/13/yale-illegally-discriminates.... They have been trying to transition to more subjective methods of student filtering for a while now to hide this better. Rather than include an entire bibliography of the context behind the change, I just linked to that change being enacted, since that's what I considered the important thing being asked for (the proof of systems being made more unfair/objectively worse). I can't give you bulletproof explanations of why these changes are being made - no one can. No one has come out to explicitly say, "We're changing the math curriculum because [group] is doing worse and we need to tilt the field in their favor." It's always couched in "better world" language - it's more just, more equitable, allows students to learn better, etc. But the claim was that social justice reforms are more focused on destroying something providing value to a privileged group than trying to come up with ways for everyone to achieve better outcomes together. That's what these changes, in general, show. Instead of having the opportunity to go to a specialized gifted program, even if it's harder for people of some races to get in, no one gets one. Instead of auditable, comparable, and clearly defined criteria for college acceptance, it's entirely subjective and based on the Admissions Office's biases. Instead of a math class that teaches actual math, even if some students find that boring or difficult, we have whatever California is doing.

bruhvinston 5y ago

I wouldn't attribute it to fascism, because the concept works in any social group and was used throughout history. Even Mao said something like "Punish one, educate millions." I think the true conflict is about the dignity of the individual. Is it permissible to do a disproportionate amount of harm to one person to bring about consequences that further the goal? I'd say no. And that also includes bringing less than appropriate punishment.

thethimble 5y ago
I think the whole purpose of punishment is to discourage others from committing the same crime - not to punish an individual for the sake of retribution. If you think about it, retribution is pretty petty. It doesn’t accomplish anything and a civilized society should do away with it. The only reasonable basis for punishment then is the “educate millions” rationale above. To the extent that it is effective in establishing rails for a stable society, I think it’s morally acceptable to do so. You accurately summarized the crux of the argument: it’s all about your views on the dignity of the individual.
- Serenacula 5y ago
  If it actually worked, then maybe this would make sense, (though I believe the negative social effects of that approach FAR outweigh the dubious positive). But in a case like this, where it was precisely a LACK of thought that marked it as a crime, it honestly seems absurd to me. It's like prosecuting someone for tripping over their shoelaces in a supermarket.

bilbo0s 5y ago

has snuck its way into liberal democracy Not that I disagree that setting an example is a part of liberal democracies, but at least in the US, we've been "setting examples" since forever. It's just that as a society we deem most of the people who the courts have historically used to "set an example" expendable.

teawrecks 5y ago

IANAL but it seems like "setting an example" is synonymous with "setting a precedent", which is a concept that seems fundamental to any legal system, even for civil cases. Companies press charges against every slight infringement on their trademarks because if they don't, they're implicitly setting a precedent that the behavior is ok. If you aren't actively setting precedents, then legally it's the same as saying, "we're ok with anyone and everyone doing this all the time." Doesn't matter what governmental structure you have, as a society, we set boundaries in order to define the world we want to live in.

porknubbins 5y ago
Precedent in common law systems applies more or less only to determining what the law is and is not really related to sentencing more strictly or leiniently (ie making an example of someone), so I don’t think they are synonymous.
bennysomething 5y ago
The problem I have with send a message style justice is that it means the person is being treated as an individual they are being used for some sort of societal manipulation. The aim of written law is to attempt to treat everyone the same before the law I think this undermines that concept.
Nasrudith 5y ago
It doesn't set a precedent though, it is just arbitrary beating of a scapegoat. So called "tough on crime" laws are a bad kneejerk idea but at least they are relatively consistent compared to "fuck this person in particular because I feel like it" of arbitrary example setting. The whole point of precedent being seen as a positive in law is because it makes legal outcomes more predictable.

ibejoeb 5y ago

I'd argue that "setting an example," or specific deterrence, has lessened in severity with the rise of liberal democracies. The notion is about as old as law itself. There was some pretty brutal stuff way back. Still have some big contemporary outliers like electrocution in some states in the US, but that's going away steadily. Anyway, the notion of deterrence, in the United States, if you consider this a modern liberal democracy, is codified in the federal sentencing guidelines: https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2021-guidelines-manual/annotated-2021-chapter-1 https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2021-guidelines-manual/annot... irrelevant technicality: I suppose setting an example could also be construed as general deterrence based on a instance of specific deterrence.