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 -
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?
You just take your own biases for granted. You speak of "governance" as if it's a done deal already that an elected few have the last word on all aspects of how society is to be run. It's not.
What you call rule of law is the nationalist or liberal conception of the concept. One that's reasoned from first principles by administrators instead of being the mere codification of ancient custom. I don't see why I should grant more legitimacy to the former than the latter, except that I am forced to do so at gunpoint.
The HRE lasted 8 centuries when imperial governments tend to last 250 years on average, so I'm not taking lessons in pragmatism. The idea that the people who throw a fit when their high minded concepts of equality, rights and rule of law are not obeyed by all are pragmatists is ridiculous. The French Revolution was not a pragmatic political movement, it was a highly ideological coup.
All civilization is based on violence, why should I like your monopoly better than my competition when it actually makes bigger and more deadly wars?
I'd indeed much rather it be in many hands than just the hands of the State. Because i have seen the XXth century and I don't much enjoy being expropriated and exterminated because some guy had an idea.
I would've thought judging by results was good enough. Your reply to my original claim was that you liked the system you lived under, and yet it wasn't what I described at all. So what's the issue then? That I wasn't making an argument you wanted to respond to?
You obviously haven't perused much of my post history. I'm not faulting you for that, but this is just inaccurate because I am a staunch and ardent traditionalist and readily accept the latter. Again, you're not responding to my actual argument.
Civilizations and the maintenance of social order are ruled by the implied 'threat' of violence. Wholly unrestricted use of force versus regulated force is the contrast between living in a society and living in a civilization. All civilizations are societies but not all societies are civilizations. You can't have the latter without the former.
And I don't want to live in an anything goes society where my freedom and liberty extends only to what I can physically fight for an defend from someone else. You can live in a world where everything is up for grabs on a daily basis, I'll settle for a world where my neighbors and I are fine with not getting 100% of everything we want from each other but can live with each other in peace.
I take issue with the unearned dismissal of feudalism as a system of government that is all too widespread since the modern period.
I hold that it has many advantages and is actually a lot more workable, just and humane in the sort of world we are entering. And that far from being "corruption", the incarnation of power and pleasure of sovereigns is a far superior form of rule than the diktat of giant impersonal bureaucracies where nobody is accountable.
Given most of the West is ruled by the latter, the political vocabulary to describe this disagreement is poor and imprecise, and more a jumble of references to historical conflicts than a coherent ideological framework. You'll have to forgive me for this, I have no better substitute.
Imperial systems of government can very be traditional indeed. France will never be a patchwork of states for this reason.
Still, if you're a Breton a Basque or a Corsican, you have something to say against being ruled by someone else's tradition.
Well that's too bad, but it's how reality works.
This happens overtly or covertly but it always happens. I like lions more than foxes personally.
If you want to live in an anarcho-capitalist society that’s run by corporate feudal lords, have at it. I’m not against the idea of it working, but see it as highly unlike at worst and undesirable by most at best. Some people would do well. No doubt. Just as some people did well in Nazi Germany or Los Zetas does in Tamaulipas. Die hard libertarians may want to live in this society but normal human beings do not.
Normal human being don't really give a shit how things are run and go with the flow. In fact that's what so unnatural about liberal democracy is this constant demand of permanent and tiresome involvement in public affairs of a whole nation.
It's psychosis at this point. Youths gunning down public speakers is not the healthy marketplace of ideas that liberals envisioned.
People would be happier dealing with their local affairs. Moreover I believe both that the HRE was far less alienating than modern Germany to individual human existence and that this is not a tradeoff against technological progress.
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