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 -
Suppose communism is bad (if you think it's good this isn't addressed to you but sure feel free to chime in). How do you teach normies this?
I mean the kind of normie who lives in a world where powers far beyond them do incomprehensible things like set the prices of stuff in the store, so that some of the stuff they really want is too expensive for them, but look, the store is full of that stuff, so somebody has all this stuff but they're not letting them have it except for way too high a price, those greedy assholes.
And then you try to explain to them how markets work and how prices come to be and it all just comes across to them as some weird bootlicking apologism because they're simply not on that level.
Is there a more "down to earth" approach that is needed? Normies who have deeply internalized rules of decency and ideas of "thou shalt not steal" (often normies with religious backgrounds) seem to naturally be anti-communist.
Now I'm sure some of y'all here (you know who you are) will say these people basically just need to be oppressed because if they have their way civilization is destroyed and everything is shitty for everybody, but if you oppress them then they complain but otherwise you have a civilization that hums along. But I hate this, I feel like there has to be a way to make society work that doesn't require telling a huge segment of the population "stfu and get in line or we're putting you in a cage". And I mean obviously violent (as needed) enforcement of civilized norms is necessary, but I notice there are a lot more people who are sympathetic to communist ideas than are actual active criminals. My point is more about these people, not the active criminals (who I support putting in cages)
Is there really no way to get through to people other than to just tell them shut up and take it because we're trying to run a civilization here
You just work through examples of how difficult finding the exchange value of labor and objects is, and what the consequences of getting it wrong are (too low: shortages due to high demand and not enough incentive to produce more, too high: fewer people can afford and waste from overproduction).
The main problem of communism is that it assumes finding that value is trivial or unimportant and can just be done by someone guessing. As inefficient capitalism can seem, it allowing prices to adjust according to supply and demand automatically resolves that issue, and simply by that, it outperforms everything else significantly. And so you explain to that person that any time there is a proposition to try and "fix" prices in capitalism, they need to ask themselves: 1. Am I going to fuck with prices that are actually accurately set by an unimpeded, normal market? (if yes, don't do it) 2. If the prices were not being set by a unimpeded market, is my solution bringing it closer to that market, or am I just trying to adjust prices it by vibes? (if just vibes, don't do it!)
By the second paragraph you've already lost almost everyone who doesn't have at least like a 110 IQ or so.
The fact that most people can't consider this logical chain is one of the most salient arguments against the masses being in charge of society.
If most people cannot even comprehend the ECP, how is democracy anywhere near a reasonable regime?
Because they can comprehend things like "I shouldn't be lynched", and voting for "I shouldn't be lynched" is inextricably tied to voting for how the government acts on the market.
More options
Context Copy link
And yet the masses in aggregate are often smarter than any expert.
If you've read Surowiecki and his arguments to that effect, you must know these successes are not those of the masses properly understood but of large collections of individuals.
As soon as the masses become conscious of themselves as masses people start copying or interpreting each other's judgements and encounter the failure modes of crowds that he lists: conformism, division, centralization, etc.
Which is all to say that the wisdom of crowds argument for democracy is actually an argument against democracy and for republics. Republics specifically without political parties and mass suffrage.
I'm amenable to those. But they don't tend to stay this way very long.
What are "the masses" properly understood if not a large collection of individuals?
Groups are more than the sum of their parts.
A political party is more than the sum of it's adherents.
Practically, crowds do not answer the same way as if you interview every member individually. The awareness of one's position within a larger group alters one's responses significantly.
Surowieck's book title is a nod to a much earlier book by Mackay on "the madness of crowds" that lists a number of examples of this effect.
Liberals are often blind to the effects of collectivism because they are not used to consider people as groups, since theirs is an individualistic ideology, but there is a very stark difference between "the masses" or "the nation" or even "the race" and the sum of people involved. One so potent it is magical and the object of many cults.
People will literally castrate themselves or commit mass suicide if they are among peers who all agree it is the correct thing to do.
There is another common line of argument against democracy that uses this to argue the crowd is the natural bride of the demagogue and tyrant. But I think we are veering off topic since our discussion is about mere ability to make correct political decisions.
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
More options
Context Copy link