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 -
(this didn't ping me but fortunately I saw it while scrolling.)
See, here the analogy deepens further! Citizenship in certain countries has a huge material impact, but so also with families! I hit the jackpot by being born into a family where they didn't beat me, prioritized my education, didn't molest me, etc. I did not earn this. It was not my reward to be born into a good family or a good country. How can someone earn such a thing? To describe it in such terms cheapens it.
I'd like you to elaborate on what you mean a family membership is special compared to. Compared to Rousseau liberalism where everyone is born as individuals with no prior obligations who only relate to each other through contracts? Special compared to something else?
There are more than a few other traits that make a family and a nation special. For one, I would die for my children and I would die for my country. This makes absolutely zero sense if you view a country as a community of like-minded individuals who can be swapped around if their opinions shift. If your country has no relation to you after you are dead, buried, and opinion-less then there is no reason to die for it. But if your country will also be the country of your nieces and nephews, second and third cousins, dearest friends and their children, then perhaps it is possible to die for it.
And countries need people to die for them lest they will be ruled by those willing to die for theirs.
That's just one thing, perhaps the biggest. But there are so many ways in which a nation is different than a free market meritocracy - common goods like roads and utilities and schools and on and on. And these items are paid for collectively, sometimes financed on the futures of generations to come. Which implies, for these goods to exist, that these generations do come and have a pre-existing duty to the land of their birth to pay for the good things that were given to them and their forefathers.
Would you like an anarchy instead? Because only in an anarchy is there any kind of liberalism to the extent that a country could be just like a "large voluntary organization."
More options
Context Copy link