This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Well, no, ownership =/= belonging, and much of what you've said rests on that conflation.
Besides, your entire comment misses the point. The point here is to explore alternatives. Some people here are adamant that no alternatives exist. Well, on what honest, serious, studied basis does that belief rest? Most people have never once even considered the possibility. Most aren't even aware that they could consider the possibility or that there are any possibilities worth considering. The very prospect strikes them as strange. And yet, without more than a cursory glance at the issue, having never seriously thought it through in any depth, they launch into proving impossibility, nonviability, etc. It's pretty wild.
Well, pointing out the important flaws in the criticisms tossed at me -- most of which were based on misreads and lack of clear thinking -- is not the same as "dancing around what you actually believe should happen". I've presented a fatal problem with ownership, which in some ways you've echoed in the analogy of ideal family. Countering with, "Well, don't raise problems until you've got a solution!" is just silly. Not saying that's what you're doing (although it could be), but that's been a ball I've fielded over and over. Besides, where is it written that I own anyone a solution at all? Why not look at the problem together and talk about how to solve it together? Why frame this as an argument at all? I didn't frame it as an argument.
What I really think should happen (it's not a "belief") is that we should look at the fact that we've predicated ownership as preemptive principled deprivation. Look at it. Talk about it. Consider it. Explore it. Look for alternatives. Don't just start arguing and defending the status quo right off the bat. But if you conflate ownership with attachment ("It's mine!", belonging) or even mere physical possession, we can't even discuss whether preemptive principled deprivation is, in fact, a problem like I say it is. First, we need to fix the conflation and make necessary distinctions. Ultimately, though, there's no real discussion to be had with someone who enters it with their mind already made up. I'd be glad to talk to you about this stuff if you're mind is open. I don't see much openness in what you've said so far, though.
You use a lot of words without signifiers. If you would like to be understood, try answering the following:
Alternatives to what?
The possibility of what? The possibility of people not having a legal right to exclusive use of land and valuable property?
If so, yes, I have considered it. I read Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Commons" in High School. Every teenager dabbles in the idea of anarchy or communism or such. In the end, the downsides of not allowing people sole use of productive property is too great. It creates very significant coordination and inefficiency issues. If you look at failed states, where there are no longer laws governing ownership, they are not productive places.
Oh. You really don't have an ideology you're trying to push on us and just darkly hinting? Because all your statements sound like you're darkly hinting at some kind of solution that we're all too dumb to get.
Ok, if all you want to do is ask if people have tried to puzzle out alternatives to ownership, yes, they have. The only reason why everyone has all these objections to the idea of structuring a society without ownership is because everyone has already tried to find alternatives and came up with worse situations than what we have now.
Can you explain the difference between physical possession and belonging and "pre-emptive principled deprivation" is? I am holding a coffee cup in my hand right now. I physically possess it? (Y/N). It was gifted to me by my husband. So is there a principle by which I can deprive others of using it? (Y/N) Is this principle pre-emptive in some way? (Y/N) If no, what would make it pre-emptive (does it have to involve the law, like if I were to get a divorce I would have to have a legal right to exclusive use of the mug?)
I think, if you really want to just explore the topic, you need to start with family life. It is in a healthy family that we see humans at their most cooperative.
But that said, there are the haves and have nots in a family. Kids come into a family with no possessions, everything is preemptively held by the parents. The parents give what they thinks is best in a very paternalistic and condescending way. Even if the toddler has decided for himself that pennies taste delicious, the parent might deprive the child of the pennies - by force if needed! And this is in a loving household where the parents share all in common, and the kids will one day grow to be partakers of this commons.
And then you have to remember the ways in which a society is not a family. It is impossible to love everyone in your city as much as your family, to be as aware of their needs and desires and strengths and weaknesses as you are of your family members. "That only matters if you're trying to be a central-planning-tyrant," you might object. Well, no. It matters when you're trying to figure out if the person next to you, whom you've never met before, isn't going to just lie and cheat you.
"But I'm going to change human nature so that no one lies or cheats.." No, that way leads to death. See also, C.S. Lewis's "Abolition of Man."
So for a starting point (if you're really interested in starting points and don't already have a theory you're nursing that you just haven't shared with us), look at the family, and then see what you can extrapolate out. And then try the following exercises:
In your new society, who is keeping the power on. What incentivizes them to do so? How do they get the materials they need for power generation?
In your new society, who is growing food? What incentivizes them to do so? How do they get the materials they need to plant and harvest?
In your new society, who is making laptops and their component parts? What incentivizes them to do so? How do they get the materials they need to fabricate and manufacture?
If you can answer all three questions convincingly, then people would be more likely to take the idea seriously. The reason why everyone's throwing up their hands and saying they prefer the current system is because no one, despite many people trying, has figured out how answer the above questions without some kind of ownership of productive property, whether it is by the state, by a corporation, or by individuals. My preference would be for everyone to own a portion of productive property, but "owning" is still a part of my ideal society.
Sorry, just can't deal with all the presumptions, projections, and straw men. You've asked some good questions and raised some good points, but sorry. Won't be responding. Speculate all you like about my motivations, agenda, subtext, etc. Got nothing to do with me. Be well.
All you leave us with is speculation because you are not specific. What is the difference between ownership and possession?
If you're interested in continuing, I'm game. But not here. Too difficult to navigate and pick up from where we loft off. Plus, from the admins tone, I'm not long for the motte, anyway. I've enjoyed our conversation so far. millardjmelnyk@gmail.com
Being confusing on accident isn’t a reason to kick you off.
Honestly I feel kinda bad. I think this guy is in a spot of Mania and my response was, "Catholics have this all figured out" rather than "get to a doctor and tell him everything you've told us."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link