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 write in favor of letting criminals vote. The main argument is that gatekeeping the franchise is not easy and requires a lot of state capacity to securely enforce it. Most of the world lets current and former criminals vote, and I generally don't find arguments to restrict it to be very convincing:
Beyond whether or not disenfranchisement is the right thing to do, there's also the question of implementation:
And beyond implementation by the state, there's also the question of how normal people are expected to navigate the cobwebs:
And finally:
"you should argue to understand, not to win" has been on my mind lately, especially with your comments. you have excellent comments showing wisdom and philanthropy but i think the latter is often your weakness. the comments addressing your points are hardly seeking understanding. still . . .
the policies of other countries, yes yes, in norway anders breivik hunger strikes for a new playstation. america would have hit him with a rock. ours is the better, and you said this isn't why, just as you said the "pretextual" knots you twist into aren't. you're flatly wrong to imply today's opposition to felons voting is from lingering racism. after all, those republicans are champions of policy that would see more black babies born. but you've said this isn't your motivation, i only mention them because:
i feel this isn't the first time you've spun a whole essay from discomfort; that you're uncomfortable thinking you're better than anyone, even as you know so well how you are better than so many.
i am approximately christian. christian enough. i am not essentially better than any man, all fall short. i am practically better than most and the only discomfort i have is wishing others would be the same—by bettering them, not worsening myself. but this is transhuman promise (and transubstantial promise). not the mistaken belief they can be changed through simple policy of as-extant man.
you know the philosophy. serious crimes reject the social contract and that includes voting. thieves might serve enough time in prison to be absolved, but the criminals who destroy? no. we can hope released murderers have "done their time" and will not kill again, but a murderer stopped someone from voting forever. their permanent loss of that privilege is equality. traffickers and monstrous abusers? their voice is not equal to mine, and as my voice is worth one vote, theirs is worth none.
who's the worst person you went to court to defend? was it a murderer? you're better than them. the world doesn't slow because people know and act their station, it slows because people know and act their station while insisting it doesn't exist.
edited for clarity
This is quite an interesting comment and I appreciate the sentiment. I'm narcissistic enough that I'm not shy about acknowledging that I am practically better than most people, on most metrics. If I could pull a lever and have 535 of my clones take over Congress, I would struggle to think of a practical reason not to.
Egalitarianism can be thought of in different axes, and I don't have a ready non-arbitrary defense for why some axes are better than others. I don't think we should care about egalitarianism when we're designing spaceships or graduating doctors. And as I said about democracy, I also have no attachment towards egalitarian political decision-making. If I express discomfort in my post, it's primarily anchored in seeing a bargain reneged upon, and under dishonest circumstances. If we're propping up a system that says one-man/one-vote, we should mean it. If we're making exceptions to the rule, we should be transparent and honest about it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link