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
Aight, I'll bite. There isn't one. There's no form of collective ownership that doesn't involve the same definitional characteristic of denying someone some form of right over the property. Even the most enlightened form of communism will entail restricting some member of the community from doing some thing to the property. Even a nomadic society with the most minimal form of ownership imaginable will still provide exclusionary rights over personal property, and have rules about who gets preference in occupying any given site.
I think you're the first one I've read so far with an actually responsive comment.
Agreed. But that's the equivalent of saying, "There is no form of collective deprivation that isn't a form of deprivation." Who wouldn't agree?
The problem isn't that there's no form of deprivation that isn't a form of deprivation. The problem is that you're unaware of an alternative to deprivation -- even though you're intimately familiar with it.
We fail to see what's right in front of us thanks to compartmentalization. When you light on the alternative, you'll get it. Part of the problem here is that everyone has excluded the alternative from the "these are the only things that work" compartment, and for reasons that are still mysterious to me, they refuse to look outside it -- kinda like a statist who rejects anarchism not because they understand it, but because they decide without understanding that "it could never work".
Well, I didn't ask for an alternative "that works" or claim that there's an alternative that would work (even though there is and it does) did I? I just asked what an alternative might be. This is as hypothetical as it gets. The fact itself that people for the most part avoid engaging with hypotheticals is hugely telling. I mean, what risk is there? Why the reluctance and avoidance? Why throw up objections and attempts to dismiss? It's pretty wild, really.
I would like you to share some of your resources with me. Ideally I would prefer you to engage with this in a concrete sense by actually transferring a lot of resources from your bank account to mine, say about $10,000, or so but I'm happy to start by discussing the transfer in principle if you find engaging in hypotheticals to be more immediately useful way to approach things. If you don't have $10,000 cash on hand, I'd be happy to take deeds/titles/straight property and handle the conversion to liquidity myself.
And after writing the following:
...I think it would be "pretty wild" for you to ignore an instance of the exact sort of "sharing" you're arguing for, or for you to engage in reluctance or avoidance, or throw up objections or attempt to dismiss the very principle you've expended such effort to draw attention to.
I'd say I really need the money, which is entirely true, but at no point shave you argued that need should come into it, so I'll refrain from polluting your philosophical constructions in this manner.
Money please!
LOL, sure! But first see my reply to FCfromSSC at https://www.themotte.org/post/1860/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/323011?context=8#context
Sure would be... if I did...
I really need the money, too. Maybe even more than you do. So, where does that leave us?
More to the point, what do you think your comment actually demonstrates? I don't see anything much of merit.
At least you're clear on what the alternative is! Kudos for that! However, where did I "argue for" it? In fact, there wasn't a single argument in my post. You could take my little KFR comparison as an argument, but it's not. Nor did I present it as an argument, but clearly and explicitly as a way to give a sense of where I'm coming from.
argument : a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argument
Where did I present an argument? Quote please.
We don't even need to use hypotheticals as @sarker did. There are people all over the world who need your money more than you do (you could save a child's life with a malaria pill for just 1 dollar)
There are various reasonable arguments for why you deserve the money more than these children do, but I strongly suspect you don't believe in any of them (but I'd be happy and surprised to be proven wrong!)
So why aren't you donating all of your money to save these lives? What gives you the right to, in your own framing, "deprive" all these sick, unfortunate children of urgent medical care? Even if you totally bankrupt yourself, you could go on welfare or just be homeless and live off the kindness of strangers (you'd still be better off than all those children)
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