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 -
By how you describe it, free speech rights under a "modern conservative" regime would not exist, because freedom of expression would be conditional on supporting the government's agenda. If you oppose the government's agenda, you'll have the full force brought down on you until you stop opposing the government. Am I misunderstanding something?
"Free Speech" doesn't exist now, and hasn't for some time. One cannot lose what is already long gone, and perhaps never existed.
Even if that's true, it doesn't address how a "modern conservative" regime should deal with the issue. Instituting a policy of "agree with the government's agenda or face retribution" doesn't strike me as compatible with my (potentially inadequate) understanding of what conservatism stands for.
A "modern conservative" regime should attempt to maximize conservative values: high trust, low crime, broad-based economic prosperity, building for the future, stability and order, cultivation of virtue, legible consequences for wrongdoing, social cohesion, etc. To that end, it should allow speech as long as it doesn't disagree too much with conservative values. Speech that does disagree too much with conservative values should have social, economic, political and legal consequences enforced by the full weight of social institutions.
In other words, more or less the existing regime that you and other "reasonable" types have observably assented to, just with my people on top. None of this is mysterious or obscure. If you're curious as to how it would work, just look around you. The alternative, where we create some rigorous ruleset that covers all contingencies and bridges any level of values disconnect with a shared framework of impartial institutions and norms, didn't actually work, because that sort of framework isn't actually possible. Pretending otherwise is stupid and unproductive.
Speech has consequences. Speech is always going to have consequences. Yes, including via the Government. No, it doesn't matter what's written on the old parchments; ink and paper cannot and have not constrained human will. That's reality. The government constrains my speech in any number of ways, thumbs the scales, tilts the balance. It should do so to advance my values, not to quash them. I contend that the principles this entire argument is built on are a figment, a mirage, of no durable substance. There's no there there.
Negotiation within a shared ruleset as a viable method of conflict-resolution requires trust. There's insufficient grounds for cross-tribal trust any more, so that sort of negotiation isn't a viable method of conflict-resolution between tribes. Or are you really going to argue that the apportioning of "districts and partnerships and special privileges" and their analogues is rigorous and fair everywhere throughout the land, and that DeSantis' unreasonable attack on Disney is the unique, utterly unprecedented intervention?
I appreciate the candor. I think it's bad when governments punish speech that disagrees with government values. I thought it was bad when the communists do it, I would think it's bad when conservatives do it. Both are a manifestation of authoritarian government rule, and I find it dispiriting to see conservatives abandon this principle.
DeSantis was more than happy to give Disney a special carve-out for his social media bill. I think it's bad to for the law to give corporations special carve-outs. DeSantis changed his mind after Disney said things he didn't like. I think it's bad for government officials to retaliate against private entities for speech they engage in.
Does trying to crush all non-party-owned media count? Does blatant party lawfare against entire industries count? how about siccing the NSA on artists for making art the party doesn't like? Do you ever even hear anything negative about these things except from us? What precious principle would we lose if Republicans were the ones doing this instead?
At least it might get you noticing and complaining about it happening.
Yes, yes, yes. One hundred percent to all three examples you cited. I think it's bad when governments punish speech that disagrees with government values no matter who runs the government. Did you expect me to answer differently? And yes, principled parties continue to point out these issues, like some libertarians and advocacy groups like FIRE (ACLU has given up that mantle long ago). If you want to argue that it's ok for Republicans to abandon principle when their foes do, I suppose that's a coherent position to adopt, and I appreciate you being transparent about it.
But it's not a principle if the only time someone ever mentions it is when group B makes some feeble attempt at retaliation. It's just a weapon for clubbing group B with.
I agree!
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