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 -
Democrats let out actual leftist terrorists like Weather Underground and FALN Puerto Rican separatists (responsible for 130 bombings). Turnabout is fair play.
Er, what? Two wrongs make a right, according to you?
Sometimes, yeah. We tacitly acknowledge this with all punitive justice - we may not be able to make a right, but the best we can do is visible punishment of transgressors.
Additionally tit-for-tat is a better game theoretical strategy than cooperating with a defectbot.
In any case, the situation can't be addressed with cliches, at least not adequately. The response like what @satanistgoblin is expressing above is largely about the complete intellectual and moral bankruptcy of people that have excused all manor of political terrorism in the past (including the recent past, when BLM rioters killed dozens and destroyed billions in property) suddenly deciding that a riot that got out of hand requires tracking down everyone present and charging them under novel interpretations of statute that had never previously occurred to anyone.
I don't know that visible punishment as its own end is why we have punitive justice. Most proponents will cite things like deterence, or prevention (i.e. keeping dangerous people in jail), or in more leftist societies rehabilitation. The point being the result: reduction of crime, a safer society. Punitive justice seems like an archaic tool that still has contemporary benefits, similar to old rules about the sabbath that gave people community, or old rules about what to avoid eating to prevent disease.
The punitive aspect is, in part, that we have that as a means available (familiar, common sensible, and traditional). But contemporary societies realized to varying degrees that punishing conditions don't help in themself. Hence why torture isn't allowed, or prison conditions aren't totally uncomfortable (in other countries at least).
As someone who isn't American, it's sad to see that American society is unable to come to a point of real discussion about what is better for the function of their country, and instead resorts to arguments about what the other side has done. It seems to me that both sides are unhappy with the justice system and how it can be abused to treat people unfairly. That seems to be a problem beyond either side, but it is highlighted when either side can cherry pick examples.
From an outside perspective, I am deeply concerned that Trump will do nothing to help the structural issues. But to be fair, I don't think the Democrats had any better chance.
The issue is that both sides do already have at least low-resolution ideas of what we can do to improve said function, we just can't agree on which ones to implement.
That may have been a problem in the past. I haven't seen good faith discussion between tribal lines in a hot minute. It seems to me that it is often less about disagreeing about the solution, and disagreeing about framing altogether, e.g. the left framing abortion as a women's rights and bodily autonomy issue, the right framing abortion as a religious and ethical issue. Part of this is political posturing (saying that murdering babies is fine isn't a popular move), but part of it, to me, is missing the fundamental reason for government and politics (what makes for a more successful/stable/flourishing/insert adjective society?)
In the abortion example, the cold calculation is something like looking at the impact on the economy, birth rates, education, and many creative ways of gaugibg the effect. Usually the answer to whether something is a good idea in hat sense is contextual and not an absolutist stance (compare a country with a popukation that is too large to support, versus one that cannot replenish its population).
This frame for abortion can only make sense from a pro-choice framework. The Pro-life framework obviously brooks no compromise. It'd be like asking for a pro/con breakdown on allowing violent nonconsensual rape and taking seriously the boons to the economy and fertility rate. This, and many problems just actually grounds out in values differences which you can't really do utility calculous on because you have different utility functions.
More options
Context Copy link
Aren't the majority of abortions in the USA to underclass women? Ye's claim there were more black babies aborted than born in NYC.
I've not heard an economic argument from the pro-abortion tribe.
I don't think I've heard one from either side, but that's the point. The moral ground for either side is imovable and never addresses the other point.
I respect that many place importance on the morality of policy and laws on both the left and right, and I think that deontological rules are an important boundary for unchecked utilitarian thinking (which can go off the rails). But from my perspective, utilitarian thinking is mostly absent these days, in favour of emotional arguments that do not take into consideration the full range practical issues. Everyone seems very concerned about how wrong the other guy is, but not so interested in looking at why both sides are dreadfully unhappy with things. This is exacerbated by hot button issues like trans people, who are a minority minority, when there are huge day-to-day economic changes in the past 10 years.
I wish the government was more concerned with being a transparent public service that deals with things the private market tends to bungle, rather than invested in tit for tat status quo or promoting an idealistic agenda. To me this seems worse in the USA than my country, but it is present here too. And I don't think one side is better than the other in that regard, when so many of the messages are "the other guy did it first". Hold politicians accountable to being productive rather than performing.
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