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 -
Not sure we're in disagreement? 'Premodern' European states are generally considered to be those prior to circa 1500 (obviously Chinese history is very different). Essentially, we're talking about medieval societies with vanishing state capacity beyond the ability to levy armies for war. My argument is that much higher state capacity is required to support free trade. The ability to support free trade scales with the capacity of the state - Revolutionary/Napoleonic France could support trade much better than the Frankish States, but free trade as we commonly understand it today - 0% tariffs, Friedman's Multinational Pencil, etc. requires 20th Century state capacity.
No, I agree with this; but I think that some European states in the early modern period — France under Louis XIV? — had enough pure state capacity to develop the ability to support free trade, and it still took a little while for ideas about free trade to get expressed. Conversely in China, early Ming China most likely had the state capacity to support free trade, but pointedly decided not to. (Chinese state capacity withered away dramatically over the Ming-Qing period anyway; I am happy to be corrected about the European record.)
I suppose what I mean is that a modern state is necessary but insufficient.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link