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 -
What is the nature of power?
I don't really know. I'm asking because I want ideas and reading material. To add some meat to this request, here are some ideas and definitions I have encountered or pondered over:
All of these are relevant only between sovereign actors capable of acting and thinking themselves. Their power's a function of what benefit they offer other actors (either directly, or by mobilizing non-actors' into productive power.) I've read Kelsen, Grotius, de Vattel, Austin, Scott, Luttwak et al. and have built thriving and productive things. Yet I crave further understanding. Perhaps, I but yearn for a simpler, faded time, while today's structures impersonally placate the governed (placate, not wield, as (western) state(s') power's collapsed along with the social contract), or perhaps more accurate possessed both the governed and the governing ("they drank their own cool aide" and trying to understand this, my tools fail.
...does anyone understand how hyper cycles work (not just their contours like Gartner but e.g. how currents/egregores pick a specific avatar or specific areas of concern to battle over?
I think "power" is overbroad. When we talk about power in a grand society context, it's kind of like talking about money in an economic context! We can distill some principles from smaller examples, and even identify some broad rules, but at the end of the day, just like economics, we aren't exactly sure if the model is correct. There are a number of different schools of thought, many considered legitimate, and many contradictory. Unfortunately, the problem is of sufficient complexity that being entirely sure about it is hard, if not impossible. So in many ways, "macro power" has to have a similar treatment and caveats as economics.
If we're talking smaller groups of individuals interacting, or even one or at most two organizations, things are a lot more easy and fruitful to work through. Interpersonal power is probably distilled in a half dozen key aspects (one example) Even some trickier questions can still be answered and thought through productively, like: "you're the CEO of a midsize company, how do you wield your own power and where do you take no action?" A complicated question that involves both the mechanics of power, organizational behavior, and moral questions. It's answerable I think, with some good effort, and can yield some useful and intellectually interesting conclusions. But it seems you're wondering more about broader forces. To which I think the best we can do is to carefully and thoughtfully study history itself, rather than spend time explicitly philosophizing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link