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 -
If you're going to ask me about implementation details given current political realities, I admit that I would have to moderate my position. I would still be happy to give citizenship to every chinaman and russian-- but only after they spent time living in america, working, without access to welfare, subject to assimilation and naturalization. While still holding onto the highest principles I laid out-- the bailey, if you will, I'll concede that an illiquid political/economic situation required adjustments to reality, and a retreat to the motte. For example, I'll concede that
is a good point. We're insufficiently forceful about assimilation, and that makes it hard to be a credal nation. Opening the borders and becoming a fully credal without toughening up would probably be a disaster. But why would we consider a policy in isolation without considering every other self-consistent supporting policy? If we're assuming a massive, unlikely change, we don't need to limit that change to a single axis. If we're considering strictly limited interventions imaginable within the current system, again, those interventions can include compromise policies. My maximalist vision is "assimilationist credal nation." But it's not an all-or-nothing policy. I would still be happy to let in modestly more muslims, paired with child-protection-service and educational mandates designed to make it harder for them to isolate their female children and force them into wearing burkas. I would still let in more poor hispanic immigrants, paired with a reduction in the taxpayer-funded subsidies for the noncitizen poor.
I don't understand this point. I consider a respect for property rights part of a specific creed. I consider education and police work as valid methods of enforcement for property rights. Therefore, I'm presenting them as a method of enforcing the creed.
Are you looking for a complete creed and list of enforcement mechanisms? If so, I'll concede that I haven't thought that deeply about it. But as a summary, I'd say, "I'm imperfect, so I'll just go with whatever the pope wants." (See also: Edict of Thessalonica)
North Korea and Cuba are both continuously reforming themselves to be less communistic (though understandably they're not very open about it.) See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jangmadang . And each of their individual citizens probably have (close to) the most beneficial ideas to hold for maximizing their performance within the systems they find themselves in.
It's not a perfectly creedal nation, but it's far more creedal than the vast majority of the nations on the planet, and I would like it to be yet more creedal still.
Yes, you need to think deeply about it. Who is the Pope (or Council, if you happen to be Conciliarist) who gets to decide what the Creed is?
When the Creed changes, what should happen to Americans who do not get along fast enough, and to Americans who actively reject it?
The... the actual pope. The pope who is chosen by the holy, apostolic, catholic church. The pope who is chosen through the direct guidance of infallible God.
Whatever the pope says. Probably some mix of compassionate incentives and stern-but-fair punishments ranging from financial inducements to banishment or life imprisonment (but strictly excluding execution.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link