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 -
You live in Tamaulipas? Because we definitely aren’t talking about the same thing if that’s not the case. And I don’t know of any rich trillionaire that owns an entire city outright, so I’m going to call it that you don’t live in such a city.
You have quite the unheard experience from anyone on planet Earth if that’s the case.
I'm not sure what to make of your evaluation of what's a common human experience if the concept of a king is such a novelty to you.
There are people that have whole nations as their estates, it's one of the most common government forms in history. And you'll be hard pressed to argue that nobody has ever enjoyed such an arrangement.
I understand new worlders are fanatically down on aristocracy, but that's not a bias everyone shares.
Look at what you replied in agreement to.
An unabashed attack on the idea of organic society from what I can only surmise is a proponent of republican/liberal centralism. At least that's how I'm reading it.
Well much as such sentiments would like to think that the debate ended in 1789, not everyone actually agrees that centralized social engineering is desirable.
Not even close.
Well perhaps you'll enlighten me then as to the meaning of this call for unity in the people as opposed to their free exercise of their customs, rights and contracts.
I’ll state what my original post was again if it was misunderstood:
So you're going to say things like this:
And argue you're not a centralist because...?
Who is constraining this liberty to ensure that society doesn't "breakdown" in your mind if not a State or a Church or any such imperial administration? Some magical force, "the people", God maybe?
No let's face it, you're arguing that a minority of men with a monopoly on violence make sure that the rules are unified in their territory. You want a unified institution to produce society instead of it being the sum of private arrangements.
That's all well and good, but it's a political opinion, one that not everyone shares.
I’m not aware of any venn diagram that logically entails centralism at the mention of the idea of a regulated society. A lack of enforceable norms or rules simply means anyone with the means can go in and impose his own on everybody else.
“Centralism” isn’t a synonym for “rule of law.” Centralism is a type of rule of law. And to be honest to quote Deng Xiaoping, “I don’t care whether it’s a white cat or a black cat so long as it catches mice.” The test of its success of governance is its overall pragmatism, not whether “centralism” or “federalism” or “localism” is right.
You like living in a society where the only limiting factor on that is how many guns someone has on the rack of the back of their pickup truck?
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link