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 -
We see litters of articles and papers from liberal media that democracy is globally dying. While I don't believe this is happening right away, could most democracies become less so in the future?
The German YouTuber Kraut some time ago had suggested that the political turmoil in liberal democracies is largely a result of the collapse of the USSR and with it, the Cold War consensus of combatting communism which unified various different groups.
I don't think American liberals are particularly holding up democratic principles in their own domain either, with how they deplatform and censor their opponents. Essentially, they're really just consolidating their electoral power while trying to protect the thin sheen of freedom in America. This bias extends across the US establishment. If you look at the highest-earning zipcodes they've all flipped massively to the democrats over the past few decades. Same is true if you look at the Ivy League. Seen in this light, the FBI was merely following the trend when they raided Ryan Kelley's home and other such harassment campaigns will not face scrutiny because a large portion of the US elite agree with the FBI targeting their political opponents. This is why they refuse to let Jan 6 die, it was certainly a riot, but nowhere close to a coup. We know what a real coup looks like from the recent Sri Lankan crisis. In South Korea, gender wars and the excessive divide over feminism has effectively become a major electoral talking point, although President Yoon Suk-yeol is married to a career woman himself who doesn't wish to be addressed as First Lady and has 0 kids with him. The state of the Koreas, one being a depressing totalitarian state and the other being a depressing, hyper consumerist protectorate of the US almost feels like an ill fated destiny. Even in India, the progressive pressure has generated a lot of culture wars of its own, where the ruling BJP's base perceive liberals as being sympathetic to Pakistan while levelling every epithet against India which would also be relevant to their archrival, and have reacted strongly. Couple with that the malthusian growth rates and the neoliberal decay preceding their rise to electoral power from being just another one of many parties in the country. But Russia and China, the "authoritarian competitors to the free world", are both strong societies, I can't imagine something like 1CP being done away so quickly if it was instituted in the US. They don't have to deal with electoral politics and do not have to deal with culture wars. And with an ascendant China, its proximity to China might tempt India to remodify its political institutions to have a shot at uplifting its hundreds of millions from poverty.
Now I'm not saying culture wars will end democracies, but its probably a symptom of decadence in democratic societies combined with the rise of social media highlighting our differences with millions of our own countrymen. Maybe I'm young and only speaking from my own limited experience? Curious to know what others think.
Personally I think that they're just not using democracy in the same way that most people understand it. To the best of my knowledge, "Democracy" when used in these contexts essentially means rule by the global professional managerial class. If Donald Trump won 85% of the popular vote and was elected in a perfectly functioning democratic election, that would be a defeat for democracy - and at the same time, if the FBI intervened and announced that actually electing Trump would be illegal and Hillary Clinton was to be installed as president instead, that would be classified as a victory for democracy.
"Democracy" is important to liberals insofar as they want the legitimacy that comes from allegedly representing the populace.
Once they have that they then go about tying the people up in all sorts of ways that actually prevent them expressing their will.
What sort of ways?
Voter protections are still largely left-coded, as far as I know. ID requirements are definitely a right-wing talking point. So were restrictions like poll taxes in the Southern Strategy era.
Representation is more complicated. The popular vote is decidedly left-wing. Approval voting has been proposed by Democrats but not really taken off. Reapportionment is ambiguous: recent cases were split on ideological lines, favoring Republicans but for procedural reasons. Recent legislation has been supported only by Democrats.
What are liberals doing to tie up the populace?
When I say "liberal" I mean it in the sense that both sides of the American political spectrum qualify, not in the sense where it's synonymous with "progressive" (or left-liberal)
They already did it. The structure of the US system allows, for example, judges to invalidate any laws when they've decided they've fabricated a basis for it. Given the current political realities the most obvious way of counteracting this - a Constitutional amendment - is basically impossible so the public has to take the long route to overcoming some of these rulings.
Roe is simply the most notorious example in which even left-liberal legal minds acknowledge issues with the ruling and, more importantly, the populace simply refused to tolerate this novel reading of rights to invalidate the laws of dozens of states and so mobilized for 40 years just to get back to status quo. And, even then, they basically got lucky. A slightly different election and Roe stands.
That sounds like tying up the popular will to me.
If you want an example of this left-coded anti-populism see the Left-Liberals acting like judges returning one of the most consistently controversial issues to state legislators was illegitimate. The federal governments increasing power also gives it levers here; iirc Biden threatened the funding of schools that enacted policies counter to his view of LGBT children's rights . So your school board and governor are onboard? Tough.
But it's not specific to left-liberals. It's a general principle of liberalism itself, with America in particular having a lot of bulwarks against popular enthusiasm.
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