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 -
Seems like a generally weak argument in so much that it relies on a premise of self-interest as a central part of its disproof, without having defined self-interest, thus allowing the supposition of what self-interest entails in order to deny its relevance as a way to disprove (or rather, prove) the premise.
But this is practically the 'Limits of Economics 101' example - people are not perfectly rational people if you define their interests in [specific form]. Money, typically, or 'material self-interest,' but other forms too.
It's pretty obvious that Scott is trying to tie 'self-interest' to the material sense, because he drops the self-interest line of argument entirely once he has his 'inflation is bad but not everyone's triggered by their self-interest!' argument. The last reference of self-interest is entirely in the material sense, as part of the transition to 'if it's not material self-interest, what does drive political disagreement?'
And self-interest never rises again, despite the plenty of self-interests invokable in the remaining part of the argument. He just changes the topic to quote-unquote non-material disputes.
So when he ends on this point-
The answer is- duh. Not being humiliated by people in power is a self-interest. It is, in fact, something that strongly coincides with your material self-interest, because a political faction can not only do the material deprivation as a means of humiliation, but repurpose those material interests (assets, jobs) for their non-material interests.
Which makes the more accurate expansion some form of-
A political faction could vastly increase its chance of achieving its material and not-material goals just by making compromises on whose material and non-material interests it prioritizes.
Which, again. Duh. And also- in no way a counter-argument of conflict theory, when conflict theory encompasses political disputes in general.
Which, of course, Scott avoids having to deal with by semantically gerrymandering the subject in the first sentence to exclude conflicts that aren't 'material' in nature.
Which is just a 'no true Conflict Theory' fallacy as a foundational premise.
There’s a pretty strong example of conflict theory in Texas politics right now- school choice. The Catholic Church is a major booster that sends requests to everyone on their email lists to contact legislators and ask for it to pass, with obvious self interest. Totally not union public school teacher associations are strongly opposed, with barely less obvious self-interest. Republicans need to keep the Catholic Church’s criticisms quiet, so they back schoolchoice to the hilt, democrats need backing from totally-not-unions, guess where they land.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link