We do not need to legalize it to get rid of the stigma. Spreading and calling out stories like this for the dreadful, inhumane, closeminded bullshit that they are is how we get rid of the stigma.
It’s the exact opposite way around. Early car users were plowing their way through crowded streets, which were designed for and primarily used by human beings. The streets also had their fair shares of carts, horses, trolleys, etc., but they were primarily for people walking around.
The fledgling auto industry was under SERIOUS fire for the HUGE number of people getting killed by reckless, inattentive, unsafe drivers. Serious risk of cars being fully banned from many cities. So they ran a giant PR campaign to flip the blame. The issue wasn’t reckless drivers carelessly charging around crowded streets and killing people – it was actually the peoples’ fault for being in the streets (that had ALWAYS been theirs to be in previously and which were built for them by them).
Worked great. Streets rapidly became places people were not allowed to use – only cars were permitted, and nearly rent-free. A total hostile takeover.
The law usually reflects what people think is moral. Not all people of course, but a critical mass. Smoking weed is still widely considered immoral. Drinking was considered immoral by a lot of people when Prohibition started, and it still is by a smaller but still substantial number of people.
Jaywalking is more complicated, because there was a deliberate campaign to stigmatize it. I can’t recall if it was made a crime to promote the stigma or in response to it, but a sigma was definitely involved.
Cheating on taxes is a crime, but in certain circles it’s nit stigmatized.
The same goes for ignoring the speed limit in other circles.
A desperate mother shoplifting to feed her child would probably get compassion from many.
On a side note, it is also possible for something to be a crime and not be punished. It is a way for a society to condemn something, but acknowledge that is just necessary under certain conditions.
(Some countries use this trick for contentious topics like abortion and, yes, prostitution.)
All your examples are things you say are stigmatized, just not in certain circles. In other words they’re actually counterexamples, unless you’re agreeing with me and I’m totally misleading your tone. If the goal is for prostitution to be destigmatized only in certain circles, then we’re already there. Mission accomplished!
It is a way for a society to condemn something
If there’s a difference between society condemning something and that something being stigmatized, I’m falling to see what it is.
I think removing the stigma and changing the law are both worthy goals, and that one can facilitate the other, but I don’t think the stigma can ever be fully removed. Laws can be changed with a single vote, but cultural values never really go away; at best, they become fringe views, and even that usually takes a very long time.
We do not need to legalize it to get rid of the stigma. Spreading and calling out stories like this for the dreadful, inhumane, closeminded bullshit that they are is how we get rid of the stigma.
You think it’s possible for something to be a crime and not be stigmatized?
Yes; smoking weed. Jaywalking. Drinking during prohibition.
A crime is what the law says will be punished, but the law isn’t moral.
That has nothing to do with public perception which has everything to do with stigmatization.
The fact that you listed things that have historically been highly stigmatised because of the law is bizarre.
(Except jaywalking, not sure where that one is coming from)
You should look into the history of jaywalking. It’s interesting.
Sounds like as good a wikipedia rabbit hole as any
Jay walking was originally a derogatory term for rural people in the ‘big city’ and supposedly not knowing how to navigate paved streets.
Yeah I guess I’m picturing people walking head on into traffic whereas it can also include simply crossing an empty street.
Where I live the latter is fine but the former is illegal.
It’s the exact opposite way around. Early car users were plowing their way through crowded streets, which were designed for and primarily used by human beings. The streets also had their fair shares of carts, horses, trolleys, etc., but they were primarily for people walking around.
The fledgling auto industry was under SERIOUS fire for the HUGE number of people getting killed by reckless, inattentive, unsafe drivers. Serious risk of cars being fully banned from many cities. So they ran a giant PR campaign to flip the blame. The issue wasn’t reckless drivers carelessly charging around crowded streets and killing people – it was actually the peoples’ fault for being in the streets (that had ALWAYS been theirs to be in previously and which were built for them by them).
Worked great. Streets rapidly became places people were not allowed to use – only cars were permitted, and nearly rent-free. A total hostile takeover.
All of those are/were stigmatized specifically because of legal status.
What are you even taking about, my man.
The law usually reflects what people think is moral. Not all people of course, but a critical mass. Smoking weed is still widely considered immoral. Drinking was considered immoral by a lot of people when Prohibition started, and it still is by a smaller but still substantial number of people.
Jaywalking is more complicated, because there was a deliberate campaign to stigmatize it. I can’t recall if it was made a crime to promote the stigma or in response to it, but a sigma was definitely involved.
But why was weed initially considered immoral? What did the aide to the president say about the “war on drugs”?
Couldn’t possibly be ulterior motives, like the racism our country was founded upon. That couldn’t be right, right?
Cheating on taxes is a crime, but in certain circles it’s nit stigmatized.
The same goes for ignoring the speed limit in other circles.
A desperate mother shoplifting to feed her child would probably get compassion from many.
On a side note, it is also possible for something to be a crime and not be punished. It is a way for a society to condemn something, but acknowledge that is just necessary under certain conditions.
(Some countries use this trick for contentious topics like abortion and, yes, prostitution.)
All your examples are things you say are stigmatized, just not in certain circles. In other words they’re actually counterexamples, unless you’re agreeing with me and I’m totally misleading your tone. If the goal is for prostitution to be destigmatized only in certain circles, then we’re already there. Mission accomplished!
If there’s a difference between society condemning something and that something being stigmatized, I’m falling to see what it is.
I think removing the stigma is the best pathway towards decriminalization.
I think removing the stigma and changing the law are both worthy goals, and that one can facilitate the other, but I don’t think the stigma can ever be fully removed. Laws can be changed with a single vote, but cultural values never really go away; at best, they become fringe views, and even that usually takes a very long time.
But, why? This feels about as effective of a strategy as ‘thoughts and prayers’…