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 -
Canadian Man Dies of Aneurysm After Giving Up on Hospital Wait
So this is making the rounds on the internet today. Comparisons to the accute discussion in America obviously suggest themselves and are even briefly mentioned in the article. Now a lot of this seems to be more typically discussion of the merits of prublic vs private healthcare, but my initial thought was, "Who could you shoot for this?".
Obviously, murder is bad. But assuming you accepted the idea that killing people for delivering insufficient healthcare is ok, and you thought Canada was bad enough to count, who would it even be? From what I understand healthcare is done on a provincial level there, so maybe theres some kind of health commissioner in the local executive? But then again, budget limitations are propably more to blame on the local parliament. And they implement what they ran for election on. Etc. I mean if youre lucky theres someone somewhere who lost metric fucktons of money and thats all there is to it, but propably not.
It's to be noted that the one thing the managerial class is incredible at which allows them to rule is this effect. This dissolution of responsibility where you're not even sure who's in charge of things anymore. Hypernormalization.
Piles upon piles of agencies and companies and bodies and committees which all together sum up to the same boot on your neck. But nobody to blame.
Ultimately it's an illusion. The banality of evil is in full effect here. The petty bureaucrat may not seem to have enough stake in the dealings of his organization, but he picked a side nonetheless and is, in his own small way, exercising power.
Therefore I recommend that bit of wisdom from Clerks: if you're a contractor on the Death Star, you knew the risks. When the mobsters come to the house of their rival to shoot him and his people, they don't care that you're just there for remodeling.
Unfortunately, Brazil (1985) is the better reference here. Another feature of managerialism besides obscuring responsibility is that it makes the whole society complicit. Most everyone with a living wage, enough to support a family, is working on the Death Star.
It's a problem.
My take is that there is only one sane man in that entire film.
"Harry Tuttle, heating engineer, at your service."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link