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 -
What if our fundamentals are exactly backwards?
New to The Motte, looking for constructive, critical discussion.
Here's an example of what I mean by a "fundamental":
Every economic system that has seemed credible to most people since the dawn of civilization has revolved around the legal establishment and safeguarding of property through the concept of ownership.
But what is ownership? I have my own ideas, but I asked ChatGPT and was surprised that it pretty much hit the nail on the head: the definitional characteristic of ownership is the legal right to deprive others.
This has been such a consistently universal view that very few people question it. Even fewer have thought through a cogent alternative. Most people go slack-jawed at the suggestion that an alternative is possible.
Here's something from years back, before I'd zeroed in on the perverse nature of ownership:
Anyone want to brainstorm a viable alternative to "ownership"?
/images/17459352527399495.webp
This ideas were actually explored by Georgists. But the conclusion is that ownership only of natural (non-renewable) resources (with land as the main natural resource) is depriving others. Ownership of these is a zero-sum game and allows the owner to extract a rent. I have and you have not so pay me for having or using it. Anything else is not. Creating anything else brings value.
If I buy a car (or crate my own with my labor), only the ownership raw materials make the effort of buying (or creating) your own car harder. But the whole non-scrap value of the car is not. If I paint a painting so good than many people find it valuable, I created the value from nothing using only raw materials worth only cents. Nothing prevents you from using your brain and skills to create something valuable on your own.
Most of the things people own (with the exception of real estate that Georgists single out) have this non-exclusive part of the value as the main component. Owning that is not "psychopathic" at all.
The Georgists solution was to tax the rent value of owning these natural resources. And getting rid of most (if not all) other taxes.
Kinda sorta but not. They didn't bring preemptive principled deprivation into question. A preemptive right to universally deprive is obviously psychopathic: carte blanche to prevent others from the benefit of your property even when it would be easy to allow them to benefit, even when preventing them is extremely destructive, even when inflicting suffering on them is your whole point, even if the suffering is heinous. Sorry, your comment doesn't even touch on the right to deprive. It's all about how deprivation is necessary and unavoidable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link