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 -
I’m not sure if “genocide is fundamentally unsolvable” cuts it. Were we to ask the Tutsi what moral demands they have, one of them would surely be the reinstantiation of their past political influence. And so a model that de-prioritizes births as a metric of power is already better justice than the democracy model. We note that the Tutsi as a cohort were harmed, that they are a group whose power was unjustly cut, and we address that harm against the cohort. This is already moral progress!
The Tutsi are ALREADY back in charge. They got right back up on that tiger.
as I specified in my OP we are discussing a hypothetical example based on the Rwandan genocide
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why is that an acceptable demand? Why is that a sufficient demand? How do we distinguish it from "we have to do something, this is something, so we have to do this"?
You're claiming that reinstatement of past political influence moves us from less justice to more justice, but I submit that a similar claim could be made for nearly any action, and with a near-identical amount of rigor. I don't see how "reinstatement of past political influence" actually solves the problem of genocide in any meaningful way. The problem with genocide isn't loss of political power, it's all the people that get killed. How does giving people who didn't get killed more political influence straightforwardly address that problem?
I don't concede that there is a way to solve the problem of genocide; it's not axiomatically obvious why there should in principle be any such solution at all. Counter-genocide or mass enslavement approach the magnitude of the crime, but are themselves unacceptably monstrous. Anything less seems grossly insufficient, at which point the argument isn't about justice, but rather about things we want for other reasons. You can't demand something through an appeal to justice if it doesn't meaningfully secure justice.
I don't see how. It's not obvious to me that apportionment of democratic power is itself necessarily moral in any meaningful sense. Are all non-democratic societies inherently immoral? I certainly don't think so.
Births mattering is contingent on the populations having values-incoherence. If the populations were values-coherent, there would be no genocide and birth-rates would be irrelevant. But if the populations are values-incoherent, how does "de-prioritizing births as a metric of power" help to solve the resulting conflicts?
The basic problem you're looking at is that different groups of people have trouble getting along. I agree that democracy doesn't actually solve this problem, as it just encourages people to frame one of the most basic and necessary functions of society, the production of future generations, as another front for tribal warfare. What I don't see is any argument why the majority in an established democracy should cede power to a minority because the two groups don't like each other. That's... not really how people work, and vague claims that it's "moral progress" seem unlikely to bridge the gap.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link