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 -
Is liberalism dying?
I see frequently brought up on this forum that Mitt Romney was a perfectly respectable Mormon conservative that was unjustly torn apart by the Left. In response to this, the Right elected a political outsider that is frequently brazenly offensive and antagonistic to the Left, as well as many (most?) establishment institutions. I am seeing the idea "this is a good thing, because if the Left are our enemies and won't budge from their positions that are explicitly against us, we need to treat them as such", probably expressed in other words.
This frightens me, as it seems to be a failure of liberalism, in this country and potentially other Western liberal democratic countries. Similar to the fate of this forum, where civil discussion was tried and then found to be mostly useless, leading to the expulsion of the forum to an offsite and the quitting of center left moderates like TracingWoodgrains and Yassine Meskhout, the political discourse has devolved into radicals that bitterly resist the other side. Moderates like Trace seem to be rare among the politically engaged, leaving types like Trump and AOC. They fight over a huge pool of people who don't really care much about politics and vote based on the vibe at the moment, who are fed rhetoric that is created by increasingly frustrated think-tanks and other political thinkers. Compromise seems to not be something talked about anymore, and instead, liberalism has been relegated to simply voting for your side and against the other side. To me, this is pretty clearly unsustainable, since the two sides seem to have a coin flip of winning each election and then upon winning, proceed to dismantle everything the previous side did.
We see this in a number of other Western liberal democratic countries. Germany and France both had a collapse of their governments recently due to an unwillingness between the parties to work together and make compromises. Similar states that seem to be on the brink of exhaustion include South Korea and Canada, though I'm told things are not nearly as divisive in Japan. China, though having its own set of problems, seems to not have issues with political division stemming from liberalism, since it's not liberal at all.
I am seeing these happenings and becoming increasingly convinced that liberalism is on its way out. Progressivism and the dissident right both seem to be totally opposed to the principles. This is a bad thing to me and a cause of some hopelessness, since America produced a great deal of good things during its heyday, and even still is doing awesome things. It is predominantly America's technology companies settling the frontier, and recently they've struck gold with AI, proper chatbots, unlike the Cleverbots of old.
Is liberalism dying? If it is, is that a good thing or a bad thing to you? If it's a bad thing, what do you propose should be done to stop the bleeding?
Yes liberalism is dying and for reasons that won’t come as a shock to anyone who has spent a good deal of time here.
There are certain principles of liberalism that are fraught with tension with realities on the ground. Specifically, liberals believe in a psychic unity of man, that all human beings are tabula rasas upon which magic dirt renders them their behaviour and social-economic functioning. This, paired with the idea that whites are inherently guilty and owe a debt to BIPOC that can never, ever be repaid, borders are therefore deemed hindrances and oppressive. Unlimited migration is the inevitable conclusion of the above, and since Caplan-esque Dubai policies are anathema to liberals, we get utility monster sub groups that are net-tax negative, coming in and bleeding the liberal welfare state dry (as an aside, it still amazes me that people think immigration is a solution to social security pension problems. It’s like throwing gasoline on the fire!). Only those deemed “far right” seem capable of the basic solution of enforcing borders and deportations, with the notable exception of Denmark, which may be the only way liberalism survives.
(What do you mottezins think? Is it possible that we all follow the danish model of strict outgrouping of foreigners? Or will that remain taboo among the centrists and liberals?)
I also see HBD as basically a time bomb waiting to explode. The advances in population genetics and cognitive neuroscience are going forward at an astounding rate. Everyone here already knows what I mean, and it’s only a matter of time before data and research seeps its way further into public consciousness, which it definitely can do faster now that right wingers are winning the war for social media platforms. We have accounts like cremiux and I/O basically churning out nonstop data supporting HBD at a rapid clip to an audience of millions, something previously completely unthinkable. All that remains is for the public to “get woke” to the IQ question, and it’s a matter of when, not if, that will happen. Maybe one way out is a Gattaca-style future only with publicly available embryo dna engineering for IQ.
A utility monster is an entity that gets disproportionately large gains from the same allocation of resources, as compared to a 'normal' person. They also are usually considered far harder to satiate, such that from most utilitarian perspectives, the correct thing to do is to keep dumping almost all of your resources on them indefinitely, and even if others are starved, helping the monster is still more net utils. In other words, if you give a normal person $500, they're happy, $5000, happier, and so on but with clear diminishing returns and an asymptote (Bill Gates probably would be just as happy to make another billion as another ten billion), but a utility monster might just keep getting happier indefinitely and outcompete everyone else in terms of $/util.
While the subgroups you're presumably discussing are net negative in terms of taxes, they're not utility monsters. Maybe from the perspective of someone who approves of people using their welfare payments on heroin, but otherwise, I fail to see why they would benefit more than any other group at the same degree of poverty.
Maybe the utility isn't in the monster, it's in how much feeding it assuages the guilt of the feeder. So the real utility monster is one's own misaligned conscience.
Utility isn't the name of the monster; it's the name of the scientist who created him.
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