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 -
In my latest essay, I try to list the major points I'm aware of that puncture the progressive narrative on economics, without trying to directly touch on the Culture War's social fronts.
Reality Has a Poorly Recognized Classical Liberal Bias
I think most people here have enough exposure to libertarianism that they are at least aware of these issues (even if they don't agree with them). If you think I missed one or I'm somehow dead wrong please do indicate so.
I won't argue against this rampant line-go-up apologia because, well, I think Mises is right in the final analysis; but this is bad argumentation for your stated goal because progressives do not share the basic priors that make these numbers convincing to you.
Moreover, they have their own numbers that you don't find convincing.
If you want to convince anyone of something, you have to start from within their worldview and chart a path to wherever it is you want to take them, and you better be very nice doing it too, people are easily scared (and rightfully so, actually).
Without that, you are in danger of merely engaging in congratulating your own side for having a worldview that correctly fits their perception of the world. This is a very popular game, and quite a lucrative one too, but as you might have surmised by observing your enemies engaging in it, it's not very effective political propaganda.
I'm more of a Hayek and Friedman guy myself. Utilitarianism libertarianism > deontological libertarianism.
The para re: policy effectiveness sets that up a basic shared prior of caring about means and ends.
If someone fundamentally does not care about measuring ROI of policy interventions, then what can one do. One can lead a horse to facts...
Not remotely good ones they don't. I actually read Capital in the 21st Century and I've taken econ courses from Marxists, so I'm pretty familiar with the other side of the aisle here.
That's kinda my whole thesis here: I used to accept those numbers as part as that narrative. Then I learned better.
My "side" here is currently out of power or even major influence in either of the two major U.S. political parties right now.
Being right is clearly insufficient!
There's an entire world of rhetoric that's not just logical arguments. Use that.
And if your mind goes "oh but it's all dirty underhanded manipulation" then get comfortable coping that you lost in a gracious fashion, because that's all that's gonna happen.
You got pretty close, but then Trump laughed your guy out of the room after using him.
Might get a little bit of deregulation, SEC isn't out to ruin anyone doing anything, that's gotta be a win. Plus SCOTUS is surprisingly willing to tear into the administrative state. Take that, build on it. Goad either side into destroying it on the grounds that their rivals will use it, anything. Just because you don't have Milei running the show doesn't mean you have to be benign.
Then act like it, dammit.
There's the saying that you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. I don't 100% buy that because I myself have disproved it on major beliefs at least three times, but it is often true in practice.
The point of the essay was to, as much as possible, list clear facts that I don't think reasonable people can disagree with on an object level. Using much rhetoric would defeat the style of trying to list clear facts. (To my knowledge, there isn't such a list of these facts all in one place [or a current one, at least]. If there were, I'd have written something different.)
There's no one single way to convince a particular person of any given thing at any given time. I acknowledge my approach has the tradeoffs it does. (Part of my worldview is acknowledging tradeoffs.) Plus, rhetoric is typically more words and my list was already pretty dang long, practically speaking.
Also, if we're debating the metalevel relative merits of persuasive strategies using the written word, rhetoric is a symmetric weapon. For example, Marxists can wax poetic about solving inequality just us much as I can lovingly describe personal liberty. I think you could call both Adam Smith and Karl Marx talented writers in terms of style. But as soon as we start talking about facts I get to beat Marxists to death with empirical results and basic math.
One thing I will say for Trump is that he does seem to be restrained by "numba go down." That doesn't help avoid the subtler long term damage to growth, but if certain other presidents had cared about market reactions we'd be a richer country. Shame about DOGE being mostly a clown show.
It would be excellent if SCOTUS is able to overturn certain very bad no good decisions that led to significant government intervention.
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