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 -
Yeah the liberal democratic political formula really unravels once you start to seriously ask yourself how all the rubes turn into informed thoughtful statemen through the mystical power of the ballot box. Especially when those invoking the wisdom of crowds are quick to guard against populism whenever things go out of their control.
Mosca is right, in practice you don't elect politicians, politicians have themselves elected by you.
But it's a well worn road at this point, modern criticisms of democracy are plentiful, Hoppe is probably the most popular on the right but the left has no shortages of noticers that public opinion is a massive sham (presumably orchestrated by the liberal bourgeoisie, which was at least originally accurate).
No the real mystery here is what to do about this. Because any attempt to replace the formula drawn up so far ends up looking wacky as fuck, impractical to the extreme or straight up tyrannical. I guess it's to be expected when one proposes political alternatives. Republicanism must have felt wacky in it's time.
But the question remains. Once you know democracy is a bunch of bullshit that masks an oligarchy because the voters so obviously don't decide what's going on, what is there even to do about it?
Liberal democracy has a solution for this: checks by experts and judges. The senate wasn't supposed to be elected.
The problem is that, if you drive this too far, you can actually encourage the very enervation of the democratic energies of the average voter.
Why care if judges and bureaucrats will decide everything? Why care if there's no fundamental belief that a citizen must maintain a good understanding of their polis but instead is free to do whatever they like and pursue happiness however?
Seems like the whole ideology is trapped on the horns of a dilemma.
I'm sure "do nothing" is technically an option.
But if you need political power to be secure, which in our increasingly acrimonious times is unfortunately required, it isn't.
The desperate reach for populists like Trump even though they realistically stand no chance to drain the swamp as it were is there for a reason. The checks and balances are having fewer and fewer effect as all the actors of the system have slowly adapted against them and consolidated themselves and the compromise the formula stands on looks less real every day.
But yeah liberal democracy is inherently trapped in the contradictions of it's own myths such as the idea that the State could be neutral or that powers can be meaningully separated without converging together eventually.
It pains me because I like the liberal political formula a lot, but I don't really see how you could solve the insecurity without jettisoning it altogether. Even if we pretend the bureaucrats would let you tweak it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link