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 -
That is exactly what you should do. If your polls show you are losing and you believe them, then one of your only chances is to convince your opponents supporters that actually they are losing in the hope they decide not to turn out on the day, and to convince some people that maybe he is actually really bad. That's why biased polls are useful. Because the polls can influence what people actually do, that is why there is so much argument about them. So yes, you absolutely should lie and mock your opponents polls even if you are certain they are correct. If you can convince enough people that Trump is a threat to democracy then you can retrospectively make the fake polls true. It's a high risk tactic and does not have a great success rate, but if you are sure you losing, then it is worth a shot.
It isn't political malpractice, it is just politics. If they didn't try it would be malpractice. You can lie about your opponent being a communist or a Nazi why shouldn't you be able to lie about their poll numbers, and that them attacking the poll numbers shows they are a Nazi in the hope that convinces people?
It sounds like you are both condemning and condoning the lies, and I don’t think that works. Either those political operatives have a duty to win the election at the cost of honesty, or not. Either we get the politicians we deserve(condemnation) , or we all lie to each other by mutual consent.
And I don’t think the latter situation is desirable or stable. Politicians lie to people, who know they lie, so they become politically disaffected, so the politicians lie more brazenly to keep them engaged, but the people know they lie and trust them even less; At some point all communication between them becomes pointless. Why would you normalize lies and encourage this spiral?
I am neither confemning or condoning. There are incentives put in place by our actions, those incentives lead to where we are today. A principled political consultant gets out competed and replaced. Politicians who are truthful and humble are outcompeted buy those who are not.
Those are the outcomes of our actions as voters and our actions as voters are downstream of the psychological make up of humanity.
Whether that is good or bad is irrelevant really. It simply is.
There isn't anything any individual can do about it, its a massive coordination issue, and there is no-one outside of humanity that can coordinate a better outcome.
The good news is this equilibrium is still better than the alternatives. Political engagement ebbs and flows and people are always very good at tricking themselves into thinking this time it will be different. This time the politicans will be better.
We had terrible disengagement in the 70s and it came back. No reason to think it won't happen again. Our ability to fool ourselves is one of our greatest strengths.
I don’t understand what’s so hard about condemning lies. To be clear, you think that Trump’s, above average tendency to lie, is morally perfectly fine, even required of a politician.
I don’t accept the responsibility of ‘us voters’. I don’t vote for liars generally. Some politicians lie more than others, and in different countries, at different times, politicians’ lies are more or less normalized.
Lies are a social technology with a purpose. In and of themselves lies are neither good nor bad in my opinion.
Trump doesn't really lie more than your average politician but he does lie differently. More the lies your boastful uncle tells than the more crafted non lie lies politicians generally aim for.
At a population level it doesn't matter if some individuals don't vote for liars, if the majority do.
When you say that politicians are not decent people and should never be trusted, that’s not condemnation, or normative in any way?
A society’s tolerance of lies, or politicians’ moral status in that society, are not all-or-nothing propositions.
For most people whether politicians are decent people personally is irrelevant. And never to trust them is just based upon their incentives and behaviors. They lie because we reward them for lying. But we can still be aware of that fact.
Thete is no point in condemning them. They are what we have chosen. Our politicians are downstream of our tolerance (and reward) of lies. They are a symptom not a cause.
If you want to get a more truthful and honest society that may be a worthy goal, and then you will get more truthful politicians. But you can't do it the other way round. Its the wrong way to look at it.
You argue for tolerating lies, which you say is upstream of politicians’ tendency to lie, so by that logic you cause lies. You defend the dishonesty of politicians even though you are clearly bothered by it. You choose to ignore your moral instincts for this sophistry.
I argue we DO tolerate lies in our current society. And not just in politics. And it is not clear that those lies are always a bad thing, or even if they are a bad thing that it is possible to change it. So in out current situation, yes it makes sense to tolerate lies. But that is independent of whether lies are moral or not.
Consider another profession not known for trustworthiness: the car salesman. They want to sell you the cheapest vehicle for the highest price. Why? Because they get commission. Why do they get commission? So that their incentives are aligned with the owners of the lot, to get most money for the least outlay.
Are there honest car salesmen? Sure. some. But in general the incentives they have, pushed by the people who have most to gain is going to mean honest salesmen are outcompeted by dishonest ones. So if your friend is going to buy a car, you should make sure he knows the car salesman and himself are in an adversarial relationship, and both sides have incentives to lie. You say, I only have the budget to pay X, he says he cannot possibly sell it for less than X +10. You both know, you can actually pay X+? and he will accept X + ?? and you negotiate around to find where X + ? and X + ?? overlap. You can imagine a world where they both rock up and you say I will pay X+3 and he says I will accept X + 2, but that is not this world. To get to that world, you would have to change people. That you want to keep as much money as possible and he wants to get as much commission as possible. The incentive to lie is is built in. It is part of our moral intuition as you call it. You both want to get the best deal for yourselves. Any actions which do not understand and recognize that (like say communism) are doomed to fail.
Is it wrong to lie to a car salesman about how much you are willing to pay to try to get a lower price? If it is, is it still wrong, if you know he is lying to you about what he can sell it for?
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
More options
Context Copy link