This is a terrible example. Most people do not want to murder, even when very angry. You don't need laws to make people not murder. The laws are for what to do when people do. No matter how universal an attribute is it'll never be 100%. Besides, you'll notice the murder rate is highly localized and associated with economic opportunities.
You know why talking about gay people _is_ a good example? Because you probably forgot that not even 10 years ago gay marriage wasn't legal in the US, or most of the world. In fact, only 10 countries did. 10. You probably forgot how heated that topic was. How people would try to shame two men for holding hands in public. We're not talking about some super flamboyant guy like that Key & Peele skit, but the other side of that. I mean just ask any Catholic how well shame works. Cultures change fast. Far faster than just the old people dying. But you don't get to be selective about what should be shameful or not. Times change and what was shameful in the past is considered fine now. In fact objecting to some things, such as gay marriage, have now reversed. Shame isn't defined objectively, just like our morals. So the argument doesn't work without this condition.
Speaking of Japan, you know where gay marriage is illegal? Japan. Just June the courts ruled that the ban is constitutional (but other courts have said it isn't). Which just became legal in Korea this year. Didn't even recognize the marriages of foreign diplomats till 2019. In fact, there are only two countries in Asia that have gay marriage: South Korea and Taiwan (2019 but not full rights till 2023). You can probably ask these people about how good shame is too.
You're going to need some strong evidence to convince me that Japan's low murder rate is because of its laws.
Yeah imo we are talking less about shame in particular about cultural norms.
A country like Japan is largely homogenous for good or for ill and their rate of immigration is low so newcomers assimilate.
The US is much more heterogenous, especially in large metros. There is subsequently less overlap in cultural norms. That comes with both benefits and downsides such as topics like drugs and gay marriage and many more.
I read something too about stable cultures have the rate of newcomers that is low enough that they can learn the cultural norms from the legacy folks vs. becoming more of a free for all because almost everyone is new so the blind are leading the blind. I think it was in reference to events like: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
- Harsh punishments stop crime: doesn't work because we've tried it for thousands of years and we even tried it in the 90's and no credible paper says that's the reason for the subsequent decrease.
- Cultural homogeneity is the only solution so west is fucked: is just a non-starter explanation and doesn't lead anywhere to solving the issue. It is also stopping shy of actually explaining anything. If homogeneity were "the answer", then it either it is just a confounder or the foreigners are doing vastly more crime than the citizens.
I'd suggest that actually the underlying issue at hand is that everyone is trying to get simple easy to understand answers. That this idiotic belief that the world is simple is why we're grinding so many gears. Nearly nothing in the modern world is simple. We've solved those problems a long time ago. We had thousands of years to work on these and it should make sense that the simple problems got solved first.
What's going on is now people's propensity to both care too much and too little is harming us to such a degree that it makes problems too difficult to solve. People care enough about these problems to make strong statements and virulently fight one another. But at the same time they don't care enough to look into the problem and try to understand any nuance or depth to it. When they end up doing so they often turn to conspiracy which ends up being another easy explanation such as "wizards did it." The classic "if it weren't for 'them' then everything would be solved." Which is closer to this homogeneity argument, since Japan has a lot of problems (as well as good). It is easy to romanticize places. The clique works both ways: the grass is always greener can be about your neighbor's lawn compared to yours or the other way around. Seemingly paradoxically they can both be believed by the same person. If only the world were that simple, where at least such a claim is measurable.
100% agree. I also think there is both an attempt to ignore NIH (not invented here) solutions (look at what other countries do well WRT health case vs. the US) as well as to assume NIH solutions will be a simple copy/paste (see decriminalization which mostly worked in Portugal though it is now showing strain as they lower the funds for rehab, etc. vs. Oregon).
I fully agree. On one hand people in the US only show medical bills that don't include insurance deductions, which are exceptionally high. While most people have insurance, so never face these payments, most people that don't never make the full payments and do get reductions. There are exceptions, but exaggerating the problem (which it still is a problem!) is not helpful but actively harmful to the conversation since it creates an easy to tear down strawman. Similarly romanticizing the healthcare of other countries is problematic. I'm going through a situation right now where my gf went back to her home country which has a nationalized health care only to find that she's paying more that we paid here. Where we didn't even max out our deductible for a near death experience that led to months in a hospital. But costs are wildly variable and this makes it hard to wrap our heads around because the systems are not easy to compare.
> r.e. Oregon
I'm curious if anyone clicked on any of the links that the article offers. While the article says "Last year, the state experienced one of the _sharpest rises_ in overdose deaths in the nation..." the "sharpest rise" link goes to a CDC website (https://archive.ph/7MbUn) that seems to only work in Edge browser. But that those numbers are based on predicted rather than reported, and that there are similar or even larger increases in Washington (24), Mane (17), (put Oregon here (14.5)) Wyoming (13), Nevada (12.5), Oklahoma (12), Texas (10.5), and Alabama (10) (rounded to nearest .5% of increased change). Interestingly here Oregon has one of the smallest gaps. Similarly the data only goes up to Feb 2023 which is only 2 months of the law being in effect. The sharp rise appears to be October to December of 2022 and a reported fall thereafter (only time that Oregon's reported and predicted values diverge). The article does not actually make a strong evidence based case around Oregon, but rather focuses on emotional with a sprinkling of policy and facts. But of course this is the case, as there's absolutely no way we could accurately judge if Oregon's experiment is a success given that it has only been running for 7 months and we'd need several years worth of data to make such a judgement (especially as we'd expect early results to have higher variance as a learning curve exists). Any data right now is more likely the result of coupled effects rather than actual policy. I mean it isn't like addictions are cured in a few weeks. And if I recall, Portugal had similar initial strains and that it has widely been discussed that people predict initial increases before overall trend downs, made long prior to even Oregon discussing decriminalization. I'm pretty sure we see a similar effect with weed. Like I said, shit is complicated.
I think what is instead happening is that due to the lack of any real evidence people are grasping at weak ones, and pretending their straw armor is made of steel because it supports their prior beliefs. Who knows if Oregon will be a success or not, but it is far to early to tell or have strong opinions.
>Shame is an important aspect of behaviour moderation, a negative emotion usefully experienced when doing something that breaks the social contract. Devaluing shame instad of targeting the parts of the contract that needed to be changed has cost us a critical tool for self moderation
I don't know how you could read that in the comment that started this and think this was generally about cultural norms. It was specifically and explicitly about shame, which I think is a terrible tool that has a negative effect on society in 99% of cases.
You’re either too young to remember or creating a non-existent history of what life was like before same-sex marriage was legalized. This is not a comment on anything to do with gay rights but more just a matter of fact: pre-Obergefell life was VERY similar to life today. Gay people still lived together, still went on dates, and held hands. They weren’t run out of town for being gay. There wasn’t rampant homophobia everywhere you turned and anti-gay gangs roaming about enforcing the social order. They just couldn’t enjoy the legal benefits of marriage.
If anything, things are probably worse from a sentiment perspective for gay people now because a bunch of heterosexual liberal white women use pride parades to act completely shamelessly under the guise of being warriors for a movement they aren’t otherwise a part of.
Except even now I still get harassed for holding a guy's hand. I still look over my shoulder.
Because people will give you disgusted looks when lots of other people are around, maybe they'll be brave enough to attack you. But when it's just them and their mates around, they _will_ attack you.
Exactly this. I think people are willingly blind. It can be hard, because you don't see what others are claiming they're commonly victims of. You don't want to admit that something bad is happening right under your nose and worse, that you've been unable to see it! I'll admit, when I was younger I also believed the problems weren't as large as they are. Not gay, but did experience far more racism than I expected (experiences in sibling comment). Truth is that the world is complex and that your single experience is nowhere near enough to make good judgements about how likely events are. There's far more going on than what we see, and we're sold on simplicity and that if we don't see it that it doesn't exist despite overwhelming evidence.
If you are implying that in the recent era - we'll look at 2013 leading up to same-sex marriage being legalized - that there was rampant homophobia, the data does not support your claim.
According to the FBI, in 2013 there was 334 hate crimes committed against LGBTQIA+ people [1]. The US population back then was 315 million [2]. In 2013, according to Gallup, 3.6% of Americans identified as LGBTQIA+ in 2013 [3]. Which means the crime rate was 1 per 33,952 persons, or normalizing to per 100,000 as crime is usually reported is 2.94 per 100,000 which is on par or LOWER than any other category of heinous crime for that era. In fact, 2013 has one of the safest years on record [4].
Furthermore, public sentiment had already switched in favor of same-sex marriage before it was even legalized, according to Pew research [5].
> Gay people still lived together, still went on dates, and held hands. They weren’t run out of town for being gay.
Are you sure __YOU__ aren't the one creating a non-existent history? Talk about calling the kettle black.
Either you've forgotten the past or more likely were just never exposed to those things. It is important to remember that our lives are not always identical to others, even those in close proximity.
I am definitely old enough to: remember my gay cousin having to hide any notion of his sexuality, and trying to deny it himself; the secret shame my aunt and uncle had for having a gay kid, never talking about it and doubling down on religion; the protests in 2008 where people said that gays had all the same rights but it was about the "sanctity of marriage," and how a "no" meant that they were going to teach children gay sex in schools; I'm old enough to remember it being a big deal that our president got a blowjob from someone that wasn't his wife, that such a shameful act was enough to impeach him, where saying "I didn't inhale" was ghastly let alone something like "grab 'em by the pussy"; I'm old enough to remember getting smog poisoning; I'm old enough to remember waking up early for cartoons, knowing where my friends are by finding the pile of bikes, and having the dad answer the phone when I was calling to ask a girl on a date.
Yes, it was that prop 8, and I did grow up in California. Not a rural part, all this happened in Orange and LA county. This isn't an uncommon thing.
But to catch you up on some things, here's some other things you might not have experienced. A little over 5 years ago I dated a black girl (I'm white) in a major Southern city and we both got looks, comments, and overall different treatment, especially when we weren't out with a group of white friends. This is something I, or her, didn't realize was as bad until it happened. A few years back (on the west coast), when I dated a South Asian girl I got comments asking why I don't date a "real" Asian, "one of the better ones", accused of liking submissive women (clearly they never met an Asian woman), being a colonizer, and other such comments. I had "shame" to tell my parents about the fact that I'm currently dating a Korean woman because I get accused of having "yellow fever," since they just ignore all the other women I've ever dated. The white women, the Latina women, or others I've chased or had crushes on (which btw, still got racist comments for any non-white girl). That I was actually introduced and set up to those last two girls rather than actively seeking them out. That this is just how the dice fell and it is probably unsurprising given that I'm in grad school in a west coast city. That I still get some of the same comments as before, that there's pressure on her for not dating a Korean, Asian men (even non-Korean) give me comments about how I'll never fit in and heavily imply only Asians should date Asians. Or again how people think I want to just dominate this woman, who is undeniably fierce and independent. All this still fucking exists.
You're not wrong about people virtual signaling. It annoys the fuck out of me too. You may notice some of those comments above aren't things a conservative would say... But you're swinging the pendulum in the other direction rather than dampening it. That's not any better. You can call out hypocrisy without perpetuating a fictitious dichotomy. By the very nature of only complaining about white liberal women you actively are perpetuating this dichotomy. Taking us further down the rabbit hole. I'm sorry, the world is complicated and it wouldn't be better if you just made all the liberals disappear (and similarly wouldn't be better if you made all the conservatives disappear). It's not a bunch of wizards lording over, pulling magic strings in the sky, it is because the world is exceptionally complex and we're all fucking idiots barely able to comprehend our small little corner.
To also help, let me explain the differences between conservative and liberal racism, with an example from my Muslim friend: Liberal racists randomly walk up to her and tell her how brave she is for wearing her hijab, conservative racists tell he to go back to where she came from. No, neither is great, but I bet you can tell one is preferred over the other. The real truth of the matter is, is that a lot of people are the same, they just ascribe to different tribes. They sing the same songs and dance the same dance, but pretend they're fundamentally different because it is in a different key. I have a lot to say about all this, but I don't want to start my morning angry.
Wow! They could still hold hands in public. Who cares if they weren't afforded the same legal and financial rights, they could go on dates! Pretty crazy comment man or maybe I'm naive as a straight dude.
I don't think the comment is crazy, and I'm going to afford you the grace you didn't afford me in the reading of your comment. My comment was not about the significance of being able to marry or whether or not same-sex marriage was a huge milestone. My comment was simply about the public sentiment around same-sex relationships and that 2013 wasn't some bigoted era where people only changed their mind because of a single supreme court decision.
Reading the past by todays standards are why social progressives are starting to lose ground. They just can't accept their win.
Except this isn't true. You're right that in 2013 we weren't burning gays at the stake like some imagined Victorian era scheme. But thinking I suggested that is putting words in my mouth. But in 2016 it was definitely a national conversation if a bakery was allowed to deny service based on the sexual orientation of the purchasing party. No, we weren't roaming the street mad max style hunting down gas, but neither was it all rainbows and lollipops where no one gave a shit if two men held hands in public.
Most people do want to murder when very angry, at least for the definition of very angry that I'm familiar with. The problem is that our societies drive more and more people to be very angry.
You want to murder people? Remind me to stay away from you. Are you sure "most" is the correct qualifier or are you looking for "a lot." Those are very different. If you have 100 million people, most means that more than 50 people want to murder and that means there are some VERY effective counter measures out there. But with the same population, if 0.1% of people want to murder, you still got 100k murderers out there, which is still "a lot" in the total sense despite not being in the proportional. Make sure to not confuse these two things, it is extremely important.
I think what we have here is a misunderstanding of the concept of "very angry". Perhaps you haven't felt such a strong anger or cannot imagine being so angry that you could imagine murdering somebody.
Of course, it could be as you allude and I have a tendency that most (a lot? :)) of people don't and that you indeed should stay away from me. Nevertheless, I should add that in my 5 decades of life I've felt this only 1-2 times (the other is so long ago that I'm not sure) and neither of those times led to me acting on it. Why didn't I act on it? A combination of reasons: I knew it would have been ethically wrong; I didn't think I could do it without getting caught and I didn't want to face the consequences of being caught.
You know why talking about gay people _is_ a good example? Because you probably forgot that not even 10 years ago gay marriage wasn't legal in the US, or most of the world. In fact, only 10 countries did. 10. You probably forgot how heated that topic was. How people would try to shame two men for holding hands in public. We're not talking about some super flamboyant guy like that Key & Peele skit, but the other side of that. I mean just ask any Catholic how well shame works. Cultures change fast. Far faster than just the old people dying. But you don't get to be selective about what should be shameful or not. Times change and what was shameful in the past is considered fine now. In fact objecting to some things, such as gay marriage, have now reversed. Shame isn't defined objectively, just like our morals. So the argument doesn't work without this condition.
Speaking of Japan, you know where gay marriage is illegal? Japan. Just June the courts ruled that the ban is constitutional (but other courts have said it isn't). Which just became legal in Korea this year. Didn't even recognize the marriages of foreign diplomats till 2019. In fact, there are only two countries in Asia that have gay marriage: South Korea and Taiwan (2019 but not full rights till 2023). You can probably ask these people about how good shame is too.
You're going to need some strong evidence to convince me that Japan's low murder rate is because of its laws.