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 -
Serious question: at what point is political violence justified? At what point is it defensible to take up arms in defense of one's community? I know we're all ostensibly against violent remedies, but at some point, practical and moral concerns ought to overtake an abstract commitment to the rule of law, yes?
Look at the Catholic just war doctrine, kind of a checklist of criteria violent action must satisfy to be right in the eyes of God: is there a competent authority organizing the armed action? A realistic possibility of success? A just cause for which you're fighting? And is it your last resort?
If so, then one is justified in extraordinary and violent action. The left seems to believe the situation is sufficiently dire as to justify violence. Is there sufficient cause for resisting them on their own terms?
If not, why? So as to not to break the state's monopoly on violence? To reap the civilizational benefits of settling disputes with words not weapons? After exactly how many presses of the "defect" button do you, too, press "defect"?
And after what point does insisting that people who've experienced "defect" after "defect" continue to play "cooperate" become itself a form of evil, of gaslighting, of denying people their fundamental dignity?
I'm not sure about the answers to any of these questions, but as I see parts of the Internet seething and roiling, and as I see other parts of the Internet gloating, and as I see it all spill over to real life --- the DNA lounge in San Francisco has a "neck shot" special tonight --- I have to wonder whether we're at one of those points in history at which it is less moral to follow man's law than to uphold God's law.
When it's productive. It's almost never productive.
Productive is relative to ones goal.
I would argue that the more evil you are, the more likely that violence will further your twisted goals.
Take the Hamas attacks. Under the assumption that they were meant to prevent further normalization between Israel and its Arab neighbors, they were a resounding success -- Israel did even bomb Qatar. Only if you take a broadly humanitarian view (e.g. are unwilling to sacrifice all of Gaza for a slight increase in the odds of getting to genocide all the Jews) do Hamas' actions become unreasonable.
Another type of violence depends on your favored type of decision theory, in that it is simply retaliation. In causal decision theory, you will not retaliate. If your enemy launches their nukes, nuking their cities will not have a beneficial troops saved to civilian death ratio.
In other decision theory systems, you will retaliate, not because it will improve the situation in your branch of reality but because being the kind of person who will punish defection will lead to a lower chance of finding yourself in that situation in the first place.
Personally, I think that thinks have to go very badly before punishing the other party should become your main goal, think Warsaw Ghetto Uprising or their-ICBMs-are-already-launched levels of bad. And I still think that obviously innocents (e.g. kids) should enjoy their deontological protection even then, so a retaliation which deliberately targets them would be evil. But nuking their cities would definitely be on the table.
More options
Context Copy link
The great thing about violence is the simplicity of it. If violence hasn't solved the problem, then what you need is an escalation to more and greater violence. Obviously punching one nazi won't solve the problem of fascism if it's 1942, and killing one moor won't make Andalusia Christian again if you don't throw out the entire Emirate of Granada. Violence isn't productive when it simmers at low levels. It almost always productive when escalated far enough - but yes, it's possible that the belligerents may not be willing or capable enough to escalate to levels of violence that actually force a productive conclusion to their conflict.
"Productive", in this context, is naturally the same as "destructive".
productive != produces outcomes.
productive = produces the outcomes you want.
Great violence almost always produces outcomes you don't want. Often, societies hit rock bottom as a result of this violence. In rare cases, a great leader rises and the society gets back on track again. But, that's the exception that proves the rule. With great violence, things always turn bad at first, and in most cases they continue to stay bad.
At the very least, violence should start with a clear outcome in mind. Or else, it's a riot.
If right-wing America was to turn violent today, what would it do ? Overthrow the friendliest Govt they've had in decades ? Replace democracy with something else ? Turn autocratic to suppress their enemies, and in the process become who they hate most ?
When I think of outcomes, there are radical options that are achievable democratically. If anything, they need significant funding. And a stable economic center is a prerequisite to executing on them.
Can't do any of these if you're inciting an internal revolution at the same time.
Eradicate the Blue Tribe as a culture.
If by "friendly" you mean "slightly less hostile," in that our mostly-meaningless elections have put some (ostensibly) "friendly" politicians into the mostly-powerless figurehead positions that are elected office, while the Deep State and >90% lefty Permanent Bureaucracy that actually rule remain just as hostile as ever.
As a monarchist, I say hell yes! Bring on our Augustus!
I am sick and tired of this "if you kill your enemy you'll become him" trope. It's an overused cliché coming from Hollywood, and it's even worse as a real-world argument. There is more than just one single thing that distinguishes me and mine from my enemies. An Red Tribe turned "autocratic" is still a totally different thing from the Blue Tribe, along axes far more important than the one you're pointing to here. Suppressing my enemies — eradicating their culture from the earth — will not make me "become them" on any dimension I care about.
And how do I achieve the total destruction of the Blue Tribe as a culture, set of values, way of life, et cetera, through democratic means?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms” ― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers
More options
Context Copy link
It's said over and over that violence doesn't help, is always wrong, and is "almost never productive". I sense orthodoxy doth protest too much. Violence, especially tit for tat reciprocal violence, is probably more effective than commonly admitted: there's just this tacit understanding that if you admit it, you open the gates of hell.
Well, we're already in hell. Now what?
Anyone who claims that things can not possibly get worse on a societal level is having a terminal lack of imagination, just like the people who think that things will have to get worse before they can get better.
The US is doing fine. Ukraine is doing fine. Even fucking North Korea is doing okay, perhaps rating a 2 on the xkcd pain scale as adopted to societies.
More options
Context Copy link
Historically the good cop, bad cop approach seems to have had success in some contexts. South Africa had Nelson Mandela preaching peace and tolerance, while his wife cheered on the practice of necklacing alleged informants, and her security detail carried out kidnappings, torture, and murders. There was a less extreme dynamic in the civil rights movement, with MLK positioning himself as the reasonable alternative to violent radicals like the Black Panthers. People mostly want peace and stability, so the idea of compromising with moderates can be appealing given the alternative. Of course that depends on the moderates having a palatable message, and support from elites and the media.
Of course this doesn't always work out and sometimes results in violent suppression of the entire movement, including both the moderate and radical elements. The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka are likely a good example, with the situation evolving from a political campaign, into an insurgency, and finally a full-blown civil war.
More options
Context Copy link
We're not. We're barely above baseline. This is America. We shoot each other a lot. What we are is acting like we're in an apocalyptic struggle.
More options
Context Copy link
What are you gonna do? I'm not seeing the path to the boogaloo from this, that mean lone wolf or very few involved parties. I can think of single digit kinetic actions that even come close to being arguably "productive".
More options
Context Copy link
Are there any places you would want to live where violence along partisan lines is commonplace? If not, why do you think that is?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link