I find it exceedingly unlikely that increasing “stigma and fear” will reduce such behavior.
I’d take liberal arguments about the ineffectiveness of “stigma and fear” much more seriously if those liberals weren’t simultaneously using “stigma and fear” to promote their own agenda, e.g., suppressing discussions of race realism.
I think I’m having difficulty understanding your comment. It sounds to me as if you are morally equating threatening the lives and health of impoverished women and children, to disagreeing with (or even downvoting) someone in an Internet forum. That confuses me, so I conclude that one of my beliefs regarding your comment is fiction. Please clarify.
Also, I find it awkward that you seem to be characterizing my comments as “liberal”, since that word seems to be commonly used to mean anything from the center-right (e.g. the Democratic Party), to the Greens, to Euro-style social democrats. I think of myself as a center-libertarian, which is where the Political Compass places me as well. Unlike some anti-authoritarians, I take anti-authoritarianism as logically entailing feminism and a critical approach to gender, race, and other topics beloved by many progressives; I’d rather cheerfully identify as a progressive libertarian if I thought anyone had a chance of understanding what I meant by that.
I think I’m having difficulty understanding your comment. It sounds to me as if you are morally equating
Who said anything about moral equating? I’m trying to determine the effect of social pressure, what you called “stigma and fear” on behavior.
(Edit: Another way to phrase this is that you may be confusing the statements ‘I find it exceedingly unlikely that increasing “stigma and fear” will reduce such behavior.’ and ‘We shouldn’t attempt to use “stigma and fear” to reduce such behavior.’)
to disagreeing with (or even downvoting) someone in an Internet forum.
Try advocating race realism or some other politically incorrect position outside an anonymous internet forum and you’ll quickly discover the consequences are much more serious and you’re likely to loose your job at the very least.
My main point is that while left-wingers claim to believe that stigmatizing undesirable behaviors is ineffective, they don’t act like they believe it.
(Edit: Another way to phrase this is that you may be confusing the statements ‘I find it exceedingly unlikely that increasing “stigma and fear” will reduce such behavior.’ and ‘We shouldn’t attempt to use “stigma and fear” to reduce such behavior.’)
That’s a good point.
I’m curious what sort of procedures might use “stigma and fear” to reduce unwed teen pregnancy in poor women. If we take seriously the article CronoDAS posted regarding the rational motivations for young poor women having babies, then presumably addressing those specific motivations might do it.
(Notably, we would not expect preaching traditionalist views via religion, or other means that did not change the material utility landscape, to work. If, as the article holds, young women choose to have babies on the basis of their material expected outcomes, then the procedures would have to alter the young women’s material expected outcomes; and — to qualify as relevant here — would have to do so using stigma and fear.)
After thinking about it for a bit and coming up with some possible procedures for doing so, I’ve decided not to post most of them because they’re really quite unpleasant; they’re the sort of things that would occur in dystopian fiction. I’ll just give one example: changing the landscape for infant mortality by making it illegal for physicians to attend births to unwed mothers.
On second thought, I don’t think I am confusing those statements you mention — I think they’re both true. First, using stigma and fear to change the motivations for teen mothers would not work, primarily for political reasons (e.g. physicians would not put up with it; people would revolt; etc.) And second, it would be immoral to try; especially given that the same motivations could be addressed in non-dystopian ways.
Try advocating race realism or some other politically incorrect position outside an anonymous internet forum and you’ll quickly discover the consequences are much more serious and you’re likely to loose your job at the very least.
The same could be said for a lot of other views; that’s scarcely unique to one end of a political spectrum. For instance, there is a long history of people losing their jobs for advocating labor unionization, even in the presence of laws forbidding employers from firing workers for doing so.
Outside of explicitly political views: Advocating pederasty would probably not get you a whole heck of a lot of friends or willing coworkers either; nor would advocating for the right of parents to kill disobedient children, as found in various ancient civilizations. In both cases people might reasonably conclude that they (or their children, etc.) were unsafe around a person who held such views. Might that be the case with racialism, too?
I’m curious what sort of procedures might use “stigma and fear” to reduce unwed teen pregnancy in poor women. If we take seriously the article CronoDAS posted regarding the rational motivations for young poor women having babies, then presumably addressing those specific motivations might do it.
While the motivations described to the article are in some sense rational, they’re rational in an adaptation executor kind of way. Thus, other adaptations, e.g., the desire to avoid social shaming, can be used to contract them.
(Notably, we would not expect preaching traditionalist views via religion, or other means that did not change the material utility landscape, to work. If, as the article holds, young women choose to have babies on the basis of their material expected outcomes, then the procedures would have to alter the young women’s material expected outcomes; and — to qualify as relevant here — would have to do so using stigma and fear.)
Compare the situation today with the situation 60 years ago. Notice what is and isn’t different.
The same could be said for a lot of other views; that’s scarcely unique to one end of a political spectrum.
So you agree that “stigma and fear” is in fact an effective way to change people’s behavior.
Thus, other adaptations, e.g., the desire to avoid social shaming, can be used to contract them.
It’s an interesting thought. How would you control for the baseline levels of social shame that racial minorities, poor people, and teen mothers are already subjected to?
Compare the situation today with the situation 60 years ago. Notice what is and isn’t different.
All sorts of things. There’s a lot less lead paint on the walls, for instance; a lot more black men in prison for victimless crimes, too; “the situation” is hardly simple. What leads you to single out your particular claim?
So you agree that “stigma and fear” is in fact an effective way to change people’s behavior.
Running a power drill through the eyeballs of people you dislike might “change people’s behavior” too, but that doesn’t make it a policy proposal rather than a psychopathy symptom.
In other words, it isn’t clear that this is the same sort of thing at all. And specifically, the reasons certain proposals wouldn’t work have to do with political realities — e.g. if you try to generate “stigma and fear” by forbidding doctors from treating teen mothers, the doctors are not likely to cooperate.
Compare the situation today with the situation 60 years ago. Notice what is and isn’t different.
All sorts of things.
Specifically, I was referring to the fact that Blacks were even poorer back than so following the argument CronoDAS’s link was making we would expect there to be more unwed motherhood among them. On the other hand unwed motherhood was much more stigmatized (and no it didn’t involve laws forbidding doctors from treating teen mothers).
I’d take liberal arguments about the ineffectiveness of “stigma and fear” much more seriously if those liberals weren’t simultaneously using “stigma and fear” to promote their own agenda, e.g., suppressing discussions of race realism.
I think I’m having difficulty understanding your comment. It sounds to me as if you are morally equating threatening the lives and health of impoverished women and children, to disagreeing with (or even downvoting) someone in an Internet forum. That confuses me, so I conclude that one of my beliefs regarding your comment is fiction. Please clarify.
Also, I find it awkward that you seem to be characterizing my comments as “liberal”, since that word seems to be commonly used to mean anything from the center-right (e.g. the Democratic Party), to the Greens, to Euro-style social democrats. I think of myself as a center-libertarian, which is where the Political Compass places me as well. Unlike some anti-authoritarians, I take anti-authoritarianism as logically entailing feminism and a critical approach to gender, race, and other topics beloved by many progressives; I’d rather cheerfully identify as a progressive libertarian if I thought anyone had a chance of understanding what I meant by that.
Who said anything about moral equating? I’m trying to determine the effect of social pressure, what you called “stigma and fear” on behavior.
(Edit: Another way to phrase this is that you may be confusing the statements ‘I find it exceedingly unlikely that increasing “stigma and fear” will reduce such behavior.’ and ‘We shouldn’t attempt to use “stigma and fear” to reduce such behavior.’)
Try advocating race realism or some other politically incorrect position outside an anonymous internet forum and you’ll quickly discover the consequences are much more serious and you’re likely to loose your job at the very least.
My main point is that while left-wingers claim to believe that stigmatizing undesirable behaviors is ineffective, they don’t act like they believe it.
That’s a good point.
I’m curious what sort of procedures might use “stigma and fear” to reduce unwed teen pregnancy in poor women. If we take seriously the article CronoDAS posted regarding the rational motivations for young poor women having babies, then presumably addressing those specific motivations might do it.
(Notably, we would not expect preaching traditionalist views via religion, or other means that did not change the material utility landscape, to work. If, as the article holds, young women choose to have babies on the basis of their material expected outcomes, then the procedures would have to alter the young women’s material expected outcomes; and — to qualify as relevant here — would have to do so using stigma and fear.)
After thinking about it for a bit and coming up with some possible procedures for doing so, I’ve decided not to post most of them because they’re really quite unpleasant; they’re the sort of things that would occur in dystopian fiction. I’ll just give one example: changing the landscape for infant mortality by making it illegal for physicians to attend births to unwed mothers.
On second thought, I don’t think I am confusing those statements you mention — I think they’re both true. First, using stigma and fear to change the motivations for teen mothers would not work, primarily for political reasons (e.g. physicians would not put up with it; people would revolt; etc.) And second, it would be immoral to try; especially given that the same motivations could be addressed in non-dystopian ways.
The same could be said for a lot of other views; that’s scarcely unique to one end of a political spectrum. For instance, there is a long history of people losing their jobs for advocating labor unionization, even in the presence of laws forbidding employers from firing workers for doing so.
Outside of explicitly political views: Advocating pederasty would probably not get you a whole heck of a lot of friends or willing coworkers either; nor would advocating for the right of parents to kill disobedient children, as found in various ancient civilizations. In both cases people might reasonably conclude that they (or their children, etc.) were unsafe around a person who held such views. Might that be the case with racialism, too?
While the motivations described to the article are in some sense rational, they’re rational in an adaptation executor kind of way. Thus, other adaptations, e.g., the desire to avoid social shaming, can be used to contract them.
Compare the situation today with the situation 60 years ago. Notice what is and isn’t different.
So you agree that “stigma and fear” is in fact an effective way to change people’s behavior.
It’s an interesting thought. How would you control for the baseline levels of social shame that racial minorities, poor people, and teen mothers are already subjected to?
All sorts of things. There’s a lot less lead paint on the walls, for instance; a lot more black men in prison for victimless crimes, too; “the situation” is hardly simple. What leads you to single out your particular claim?
Running a power drill through the eyeballs of people you dislike might “change people’s behavior” too, but that doesn’t make it a policy proposal rather than a psychopathy symptom.
In other words, it isn’t clear that this is the same sort of thing at all. And specifically, the reasons certain proposals wouldn’t work have to do with political realities — e.g. if you try to generate “stigma and fear” by forbidding doctors from treating teen mothers, the doctors are not likely to cooperate.
Specifically, I was referring to the fact that Blacks were even poorer back than so following the argument CronoDAS’s link was making we would expect there to be more unwed motherhood among them. On the other hand unwed motherhood was much more stigmatized (and no it didn’t involve laws forbidding doctors from treating teen mothers).
This is unrelated to the main argument, but I’m not sure the crimes in question are truly victimless for reasons given in these two posts.
This is getting too political, best stop now or re-frame in a non-divisive way.