> The US system probably is overly harsh -- in Ireland it's probaby overly lenient and the pendulum affect is that we've criminals being called in to court with literally hundreds of prior convictions and then they're let off with suspended sentences and then go straight back to what they were doing.
FWIW, it's not evenly distributed in the US. We have jurisdictions like Chicago where violent offenders are released on probation after a few months or years only to reoffend. Further, these violent crimes aren't evenly distributed across Chicago, but rather they disproportionately affect poor, typically minority communities. It's well-known that crime (esp violent) is driving businesses (and jobs) out of these communities and perpetuating the cycle of poverty. Presumably these light-on-crime policies (and similarly "defund the police") are a misguided attempt to help these communities, since the criminal justice system is biased against the poor and minorities (and men, but that seems to not factor into any calculus); however, they're exacerbating the very problem they purport to solve. Indeed, Chicago appears to be on track for its most violent year since the gang wars of the early nineties, after decades of consistent, remarkable, commendable progress.
For me, this underscores the importance of properly understanding the dynamics of the problem we're trying to solve--it's not sufficient to be well-intentioned or to have the right bumper sticker. It also highlights the importance of free-speech and open inquiry, since we can't collectively understand these dynamics without the kind of robust debate that proponents of political correctness and cancel culture aspire to suppress. And note that their intentions are presumably good--they don't want (at least some) hateful talking points to be espoused; however, the well-being of these communities isn't worth trading in exchange for the suppression of hateful talking points (never mind the more abstract reasons for preserving free speech, such as "what happens when your ideological cohort falls out of power and someone else gets to decide what speech is permissible?") and moreover prior to the mainstreaming of restrictive-speech ideals (let's say circa 2014-2015 but this is all pretty fuzzy), this really wasn't a problem--American society did a pretty good job of marginalizing those who would openly espouse hateful viewpoints (although some will advocate for a meaninglessly broad definition of 'hate' or would argue that any speech from anyone they don't like can fairly be considered a 'racist dogwhistle', but those kinds of bad faith arguments notwithstanding...) and things were gradually improving for everyone.
Anyway, I apologize for going a bit off track. Hopefully this stream-of-consciousness prompts productive discussion and introspection.
> never mind the more abstract reasons for preserving free speech, such as "what happens when your ideological cohort falls out of power and someone else gets to decide what speech is permissible?"
Most people that I talk to opposed to net neutrality are opposed it solely because this point is deeply concerning to them.
Broadly speaking, people are quick to give the government additional power when it aligns with their interests, but are critical of the government when the additional power is used for things they disagree with.
What's the objective of this comment? It starts off talking about "Chicago = War Zone" and then it devolves into the ground state of HN's favorite whipping children of "cancel culture", "free speech" and how "The well-being of these communities shouldn't be exchanged for free-speech(?)". I'm not even sure what the last point was meant to be about other than showing angst at the idea that racist comments are largely derided and marginalized.
> What's the objective of this comment? It starts off talking about "Chicago = War Zone" and then it devolves into the ground state of HN's favorite whipping children of "cancel culture", "free speech" and how "The well-being of these communities shouldn't be exchanged for free-speech(?)".
Chicago isn't a warzone. Last year I bought my first home here. I wouldn't live here if it were a warzone. But it does have problems and I have a vested interest in their resolution (or more realistically, reducing their impact). I think I explained pretty clearly how I see cancel culture, etc relating to these problems. If you have specific questions, I'm happy to try to answer (I don't claim perfect knowledge, I'm only sharing my perspective).
> "The well-being of these communities shouldn't be exchanged for free-speech(?)". I'm not even sure what the last point was meant to be about other than showing angst at the idea that racist comments are largely derided and marginalized.
I don't know how you got "angst at the idea that racist comments are largely derided and marginalized". I explicitly noted that marginalizing actual racism is a good thing. The problem is that a lot of necessary debate is considered beyond the pale such that we are only allowed to talk about the solutions which (pretty obviously) are only going to exacerbate the problem, such as reducing policing in the communities most in need and letting violent offenders out without the necessary rehabilitation. Your comment (inadvertently, I'm sure) lumps these concerns in with "racist comments", illustrating perfectly my issue with political correctness. I understand the desire for a simple worldview with a group of purely good guys and a group of purely bad guys, but I'm interested in solving real world problems and the real world has a lot of nuance to be explored. We have to be able to talk about that nuance in order to solve these problems. We're not doing these communities any favors by avoiding unpleasant complexities.
As previously discussed, we can't improve neighborhoods plagued by violent crime simply by releasing offenders early or pulling police out of those neighborhoods. Anyway, this conversation seems to be veering toward an unproductive direction. I'll see myself out.
FWIW, it's not evenly distributed in the US. We have jurisdictions like Chicago where violent offenders are released on probation after a few months or years only to reoffend. Further, these violent crimes aren't evenly distributed across Chicago, but rather they disproportionately affect poor, typically minority communities. It's well-known that crime (esp violent) is driving businesses (and jobs) out of these communities and perpetuating the cycle of poverty. Presumably these light-on-crime policies (and similarly "defund the police") are a misguided attempt to help these communities, since the criminal justice system is biased against the poor and minorities (and men, but that seems to not factor into any calculus); however, they're exacerbating the very problem they purport to solve. Indeed, Chicago appears to be on track for its most violent year since the gang wars of the early nineties, after decades of consistent, remarkable, commendable progress.
For me, this underscores the importance of properly understanding the dynamics of the problem we're trying to solve--it's not sufficient to be well-intentioned or to have the right bumper sticker. It also highlights the importance of free-speech and open inquiry, since we can't collectively understand these dynamics without the kind of robust debate that proponents of political correctness and cancel culture aspire to suppress. And note that their intentions are presumably good--they don't want (at least some) hateful talking points to be espoused; however, the well-being of these communities isn't worth trading in exchange for the suppression of hateful talking points (never mind the more abstract reasons for preserving free speech, such as "what happens when your ideological cohort falls out of power and someone else gets to decide what speech is permissible?") and moreover prior to the mainstreaming of restrictive-speech ideals (let's say circa 2014-2015 but this is all pretty fuzzy), this really wasn't a problem--American society did a pretty good job of marginalizing those who would openly espouse hateful viewpoints (although some will advocate for a meaninglessly broad definition of 'hate' or would argue that any speech from anyone they don't like can fairly be considered a 'racist dogwhistle', but those kinds of bad faith arguments notwithstanding...) and things were gradually improving for everyone.
Anyway, I apologize for going a bit off track. Hopefully this stream-of-consciousness prompts productive discussion and introspection.