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 -
Ok, taking all this in good faith then I think the only real shot at overcoming deprivation is by pushing forward. Continue expanding productivity through capital investment. Make more and more things too cheap to meter. Ownership isn't the source of deprivation really, only the shape it takes, it's scarcity that would need to be defeated. In practice, at least in the west, we've basically defeated scarcity on things like foodstuffs. Our poor suffer from obesity and not really hunger. Our poor mostly don't lack for running water, clothes on their backs, even shelter for most of them although I do have particular changes I'd like to see on this subject.
The chronic homeless wither not because society is unable to house them but because our sense of individual freedom won't allow us to commit those that can't function without aid. This example muddies the issue. The deprivation here might appear to be proximately caused by ownership of homes, trivially if homeless people could just go in and occupy anyone's home then they would be cured of their homelessness but this wouldn't really solve the underlying issue. I don't know how you could prevent self imposed deprivation, or at least how you could do so without forfeiting freedom.
Alright, then I revise what I said to "My conclusion is that the right to deprive is probably necessary for any social system that scales past around the Dunbar number and depending on how you operationalize "deprive" maybe far below that number."
I do want things to improve. I observe the history of society and see that as we build out new technology and capital infrastructure we increase abundance and things get better. I would like to separate the concept of "things being better" into things made better systemically and things made better by material progress. We don't need to change the system for things to be made better by material progress. It's genuinely incredible how much better things have been made by material progress. I don't have to worry about infections. I can spend a Wednesday evening relaxing in a comfortable chair listening to tunes on high quality wireless headphones eating good food in a large air conditioned house responding to people on the internet. I am the envy of kings of old. I'm more skeptical about things being made by, radical, systemic changes.
Still I would like things to improve. I'm never sure if I should call myself a liberal or a conservative. I'm freedom loving and optimistic. I think if we mostly leave people alone and minimally adjust the system things will simply get better over time. So I oppose rash and under thought out changes to the system. You could say I conserve the system. I'm not opposed to all change, in fact I fiercely support some changes and updates as the material conditions change. But I find radicalism off putting, ungrateful, pessimistic and short sighted. You're not only risking what good we have, you're risking the good that the current system will produce if we only allow it to. You may see ownership as a rotten board of a rotting house, but I see it as a vital component of a prosperous and growing society. So from my perspective it really is on you to explain why and how we should get rid of it or I'm going to default to declining. If that's conservative then I am a conservative. If it's madness then I am mad.
I'll note that this is the culture war thread, we're here to discuss the culture war. The default valiance anyone will approach any underspecified idea with is that there are culture war/political implications to what you propose. I know you directly said in the OP that you were looking to brainstorm and it can be exhausting to have to overly signal that you're not advancing any particular objective but your OP would have been much better received if you had put some effort into making it clear that you didn't have an axe to grind.
More options
Context Copy link