We have one more Avengers post for you
The Strange Notion of “Gay Celibacy” - Crisis Magazine
A variant of desert theory is the communicative theory ofpunishment, which takes both a forward-looking and a backward-lookingview of the purposes of punishment. The purposes of punishment on acommunicative account are both to convey the state's condemnationof the action and to lead the offender to repent her action and toreform her conduct. On a communicative conception of punishment, thestate aims to engage with the offender in a moral dialogue so that sheappreciates the moral reasons she has to follow the law. According tosome communicative theories, condemnation itself sufficiently justifiespunishment. Punishment may be seen as a secular form of penance thatvividly confronts the offender with the effects of her crime (Duff1998, 162). According to other, less monistic communicative theories,communication of censure alone is insufficient to justify punishment;added to it must be the aim of deterrence (von Hirsch 1998, 171).Still other communicative theories add different considerations to thegrounds for justification. On one pluralistic view, a distinction isdrawn between the punishment that is deserved according to justice andthe punishment that is actually justified. When, for example, anoffender demonstrates repentance for her offence prior to punishment,the law has reason to be merciful toward her and to impose a lesssevere punishment than that which she deserves (Tasioulas 2006). Mercyinvolves a charitable concern for the well-being of the offender as apotential recipient of deserved punishment. Given this offender'srepentance, the justified punishment in this case is less than it wouldbe were there no grounds for mercy.
10 Big Myths About Copyright Explained, by Brad …
None of this is central in the standard Marxist theoretical cannon when clearly, to me, as an urbanist, it should be. I feel entirely comfortable with daily life perspectives and applaud the social anarchist position on this. I do, however, have a caveat: everyday life problems from the perspective of the individual or of the local neighborhood look quite different from everyday life in the city as a whole. This is why the transition from Kropotkin to Patrick Geddes, Mumford and the anarchist- inspired urban planners becomes an important issue for me. How to organize urban life in the city as a whole so that everyday life for everyone is not “nasty, brutish and short” is a question that we radical geographers need to consider. This aspect of the social anarchist tradition – the preparedness to jump scales and integrate local ambitions with metropolitan wide concerns – is invaluable if obviously flawed and I am distressed that most anarchists, including Springer apparently, ignore if not actively reject it presumably because it seems hierarchically inspired or entails negotiating with if not mobilizing state power. It is here, of course, that the Marxist insights on the relation between capital accumulation and urbanization become critical to social action. And it is surely significant that the urban uprisings in Turkey and Brazil in 2013 were animated by everyday life issues as impacted by the dynamics of capital accumulation and that they were metropolitan-wide in their implications.