VoiceOfRa comments on Rationality Quotes Thread October 2015 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: elharo 03 October 2015 01:23PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (265)

CC Licenced

Tags: quotes

Comments (265)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ike 20 October 2015 12:36:58AM 6 points [-]

So long as we allow the terms of the debate to be shaped by what is politically possible, we’ll only ever be taking tiny steps and calling them major.

Mychal Denzel Smith

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 21 October 2015 01:15:39PM 6 points [-]

True, of course the article you linked to, by reiterating the currently acceptable dogmas as if they were objective truths, goes a long way towards making them problem worse.

Comment author: ike 21 October 2015 01:44:59PM 0 points [-]

Are you saying they got the object level question wrong, or that abolition is politically possible right now?

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 22 October 2015 04:28:40AM * 4 points [-]

They got the object level way wrong, abolition of prisons is a very very stupid idea.

Let's look at the article itself to see some of its most grievous flaws:

For example, the article admits that an "explosion in the incarcerated population [] has occurred over the past 40 years". However, it fails to note that that implies that something must have occurred over the last 40 years that caused this explosion and thus the solution should involve figuring out what changes have lead to this explosion and undoing them. The article instead going in the direction we have been going only more so.

Later the article quotes Tony Papa of Drug Policy Alliance, and says he spend 12 years serving an "unjust sentence", but fails to specify in what way the sentence was "unjust". Was he wrongly convicted, if so the problem is that and not the existence of minimum sentences. However, one gets the impression from the authors lack of interest in the question (or for that matter in what crime Tony Papa was incarcerated for) that the use of the word "unjust" is BS in Frankfurt's sense.

Comment author: ike comment score below threshold [+] (32 children)

Comment author: ike 22 October 2015 05:33:42AM -3 points [-]

They got the object level way wrong

So your above comment considers abolition a "currently acceptable dogma"? That doesn't seem true, it's still well out of the Overton Window.

The article isn't doing analysis as much as advocacy, but it isn't really trying to convince. Its purpose seems to be to motivate people already convinced to actually do something, or to spread awareness of a position (again, without arguing for it). Both are valid, and complaining about it not being rigorous enough seems to be missing the point.

However, it fails to note that that implies that something must have occurred over the last 40 years that caused this explosion and thus the solution should involve figuring out what changes have lead to this explosion and undoing them.

The obvious answer is "drug laws and mandatory sentences", and the article does propose to do away with them.

Also, the specific proposal is

Abolition would end the death penalty and life sentences, and push the maximum number of years that can be served for any offense down to ten years, at most.

which is (as the article fails to mention but should have) similar to some European countries, so can't be too terrible.

Later the article quotes Tony Papa of Drug Policy Alliance, and says he spend 12 years serving an "unjust sentence", but fails to specify in what way the sentence was "unjust". Was he wrongly convicted, if so the problem is that and not the existence of minimum sentences. However, one gets the impression from the authors lack of interest in the question (or for that matter in what crime Tony Papa was incarcerated for) that the use of the word "unjust" is BS in Frankfurt's sense.

Not mentioning something doesn't mean lack of interest. He's mentioned as being from the Drug Policy Alliance, and sure enough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Papa

15 to Life, published in 2004, is an autobiographical account of Papa's experience with the New York criminal justice system and anti-narcotics laws under which he was sentenced to fifteen years to life imprisonment for a first time drug offense.

The unjustness is clearly the belief that drug laws are unjust, which is also something the article takes for granted and assumes the reader does as well.

Comment author: Lumifer 22 October 2015 03:32:57PM * 6 points [-]

to spread awareness of a position (again, without arguing for it)

Well, you have to at least formulate that position sensibly. From a glance at the article, it seems to like the idea of the abolition of prisons. The immediate question that comes to mind is "and replace them with what?" Without even a hint of an answer, it's not much of a position.

Long-term prisons are a relatively recent idea, but I'm not sure going to pre-prison practices would be all that great since they tended to be centered on "oh, just hang him".

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 23 October 2015 12:15:05PM 1 point [-]

Long-term prisons are a relatively recent idea, but I'm not sure going to pre-prison practices would be all that great since they tended to be centered on "oh, just hang him".

I'd be for it, or for corporal punishment more generally. However, somehow I doubt that's what either ike or Mychal Denzel Smith have in mind.

Comment author: ike 22 October 2015 06:24:30PM 0 points [-]

The article claims that

Having prisons is undesirable
This is not feasible right now
Here's this less radical proposal (no death sentence plus 10 year max), which is feasible
Thinking the more radical position might be ideal (or believing in 1) will help one come to conclusions such as those in 3, which are steps in the right direction

"10 years max" is a position. The fact that the author presumably believes more (it's not that clear what they do believe, which is a weakness) doesn't make what they do directly advocate "not a position".

Comment author: Lumifer 22 October 2015 07:03:56PM 4 points [-]

Recall your original quote. It strongly hints that we should be interested in "real solutions" even if they are not politically feasible. So in the linked article I expect to find a politically infeasible "real solution". And it's there -- the author repeatedly mentions abolition of prisons. I have to assume that it's intended to be that infeasible thing which we ought to want regardless.

Comment author: ike 22 October 2015 10:13:49PM -2 points [-]

It's not clear from the article whether they would get rid of prisons tomorrow if it were politically possible. They may believe that an ideal world would not have prisons but getting rid of them overnight would be bad.

Not having a plan for getting rid of prisons or what to do instead isn't a problem, because they aren't advocating for that.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 23 October 2015 12:16:35PM 6 points [-]

The fact that the author presumably believes more (it's not that clear what they do believe, which is a weakness) doesn't make what they do directly advocate "not a position".

In that case what does he mean by "Having prisons is undesirable"?

Comment author: Lumifer 23 October 2015 02:53:27PM 9 points [-]

He means that he is progressive and compassionate and forward-thinking and stands up to the man and stuff.

Comment author: AlexanderRM 02 December 2015 08:34:15PM 0 points [-]

The way to signal LW ingroupness would be to say "signaling progressiveness", but that does cover it fairly well. I suspect the logic is roughly that our current prison system (imprisoning people for 12 years for a 1st time drug offense) is bad in the direction of imprisoning far too many people, so opposing our current prison system is good, so opposing the current prison system more is even better, and the most you can oppose the prison system is to support abolishing all prisons.

(actually there might be something of an argument to be made that in order to fight a policy way too far to one side of good policy, it can be useful in some cases to overcompensate and bring a policy too far to the other side into the discussion, although I think in a politically polarized environment like the US that's bad overall- the overwhelming majority people who hear such an argument will be people who were already convinced of a decent policy and will be sent too far to one side by it, while the people who actually would have their beliefs brought closer to a good policy by hearing the counter-narrative either won't hear it, or will use it to strawman the opposition.)

continue this thread »

Comment author: ike 24 October 2015 06:34:04PM -2 points [-]

It's possible that they would agree that the immediate outcome of abolishing prisons would be bad (in the same way that the immediate outcome of abolishing slavery hurt some people) and they might even agree that they shouldn't be abolished all at once. It's not clear that they wouldn't agree, anyway.

The actual statement just means that a utopia wouldn't have prisons.

Comment author: ChristianKl 28 October 2015 10:22:03AM 0 points [-]

The actual statement just means that a utopia wouldn't have prisons.

Motte and Bailey? So there no problem with having prisons in today's day and age because our society is very far from utopia anyway?

continue this thread »

Comment author: entirelyuseless 22 October 2015 08:21:46PM 4 points [-]

"which is (as the article fails to mention but should have) similar to some European countries, so can't be too terrible."

Judging from Wikipedia (which of course is subject to correction), Norway has an ordinary 21 year maximum, but it can be increased indefinitely if they think the person is a danger to society. Some other countries, but not very many, have a 25 year maximum. Most other countries that have a maximum have 30-50 years.

None of these, not even 25 years, is reasonably similar to a 10 year maximum.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 22 October 2015 08:18:19AM 8 points [-]

Its purpose seems to be to motivate people already convinced to actually do something,

In other words to motivate idiots to act on their stupidity.

or to spread awareness of a position (again, without arguing for it).

What exactly is "spread awareness" supposed to mean? It seems to mean "convince people using dark arts".

The obvious answer is "drug laws and mandatory sentences", and the article does propose to do away with them.

Drug laws have been around a lot longer than 40 years. As for mandatory sentences, they were introduced because crime was reaching unacceptable levels. So I don't think repealing them is a good idea without addressing the issue that made them necessary.

which is (as the article fails to mention but should have) similar to some European countries

The same European countries that have given up enforcing any sense of order in large parts of their major cities.

By the way, if you want to deal with some of the actual politically untouchable issues that make the problem unsolvable, you can start by looking at the correlation between race and violent crime.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 22 October 2015 07:19:16PM 1 point [-]

The same European countries that have given up enforcing any sense of order in large parts of their major cities.

Such as?

Comment author: Lumifer 22 October 2015 09:19:37PM * 4 points [-]

Wikipedia

Some areas by the Eurotunnel in Calais, France come to mind, for example. Sweden seems to have problems, too.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 23 October 2015 08:20:58PM 4 points [-]

The sourcing there is weak and questionable at best. That people assert that areas are "no-go" is pretty different than there being a genuine lack of any sense of order, and that's even before one looks at the issue of whether this is any different from some areas simply being higher in crime than others.

Comment author: Lumifer 26 October 2015 02:44:34PM 5 points [-]

I am not making claims about "any sense of order", but going by what I read European police lost control of some chunks of its territory.

Take Calais. Here is a sympathetic account which is actually a kinda-detective story: a body in a wetsuit washes up on Norway's shore and people are trying to figure out who-what-why. The clues lead to an immigrant camp in Calais and, well, it's pretty clear that the French state lost control there.

continue this thread »

Comment author: ike 22 October 2015 12:35:11PM -1 points [-]

Drug laws have been around a lot longer than 40 years

The enforcement and penalties were rewritten in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act. I'm not sure what your point is here.

In other words to motivate idiots to act on their stupidity.

Couldn't you criticize all advocacy on the same basis?

Spread awareness mean "make more people aware that position X exists and has advocates, even if they don't agree".

Re mandatory sentences, the ones for drug crimes were enacted because drugs crimes were increasing? Then if you concede that drug laws are wrong, those sentences shouldn't happen either.

The same European countries that have given up enforcing any sense of order in large parts of their major cities.

Which country are you talking about? Norway has a maximum, and does better than the US. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Norway/United-States/Crime

I haven't studied this in depth, but where's the argument that the US's prison system has led to better outcomes?

Comment author: ChristianKl 28 October 2015 10:41:11AM 0 points [-]

As for mandatory sentences, they were introduced because crime was reaching unacceptable levels. So I don't think repealing them is a good idea without addressing the issue that made them necessary.

The 60's did have an increase in crime but crime rates are lower than before that time.

Comment author: ChristianKl 28 October 2015 10:24:18AM 0 points [-]

which is (as the article fails to mention but should have) similar to some European countries, so can't be too terrible.

Which European countries do you believe to have a maximum of ten years?

Comment author: ike 28 October 2015 11:13:37AM -2 points [-]

I said similar, not identical.

Comment author: ChristianKl 28 October 2015 10:32:58AM 0 points [-]

The obvious answer is "drug laws and mandatory sentences", and the article does propose to do away with them.

Moving towards drug legalistation works a lot better since it's proponents focus on what's politically possible with medical marijuana legislation then focusing on the maximum position of abolishing all prisons.

Comment author: ike 28 October 2015 11:27:03AM -1 points [-]

Often advocates have a hard time with being pragmatic. The original quote is saying you shouldn't be too pragmatic, but the opposite lesson is true as well.

Comment author: Lumifer 28 October 2015 02:27:48PM 2 points [-]

Often advocates have a hard time with being pragmatic.

I think, translated into a normal language, this means "Have no clue what they are talking about". An alternative translation is "Should not be allowed withing six feet of sharp objects".

VoiceOfRa comments on Rationality Quotes Thread October 2015 - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (265)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (265)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login