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 -
Wait, what? Then how are you defining the word "deprivation"? Surely, if I am using an object, I am not allowing others to use the object at the same time, i.e. I am depriving them of the ability to use the object.
You need to think it through more carefully. I have a nice little USB-powered fan that I use in the afternoons here in central Mexico. Am I depriving you of that fan? Do you right here and now consider yourself deprived? If you have something I don't want, have you deprived me by making clear you won't let me near it?
There are 3 very different things at play here: 1) actual deprivation; 2) potential deprivation; and 3) the actual right to deprive potentially everyone else in the world of your property. Conflate them at your peril, lol.
I've been talking exclusively about #3, and only #3.
Actual deprivation requires things: 1) a deprivable; 2) a desire to possess on the part of a non-owner; 3) the owners exercise of their deprivation right.
Not all a person owns is a deprivable. A desirable you own can only be deprivable if you have the wherewithal to actually deprive others of it. Otherwise, ownership is legal right that you're incapable of exercising, so it's practically impotent. Companies trying to enforce copyrights against fair use know exactly what I'm talking about.
Merely having the legal right to deprive doesn't actually deprive anyone. An owner has that right, but might offer their property for free public use. Lots of restaurants have created menu items specifically to offer to people who have no means to pay.
Rights are, by nature and definition, purely retroactive. They have no prevention potential. Unless you actively prevent or resist interlopers, your ownership/right to deprive does diddly to keep your property safe. The only meaningful effect your right has on anyone is on people who respect your right -- which, guess what, means they're not the ones you need to prevent/protect against. Rights are 100% justificatory. Their only practical use is to justify actions that an owners takes in protection of property. The actions taken are the only preventative. (Where's a cop when you need one, lol?)
Hopefully that helps.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link