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 -
And yet my view can explain behaviors that your view cannot.
Rather the opposite. It's very easy to say one should only resist for "obvious government overreach" and then whenever one is in a situation where resistance is an option (though not a prudent one), chicken out by saying that one didn't involve enough overreach. Any libertarians resisting speeding tickets or being pulled off a train are living by their principles even when it is harming them.
But we aren't talking about libertarians here, just people who don't want to eat shit. Nobody, as I said, except the most beaten-down milquetoast PMC, likes to eat shit. Most people always do, because they don't want to be literally beaten and/or jailed -- although they'll rarely admit that this is the reason. Some people, for various reasons, have a higher tolerance for pain and social punishment and/or a lower tolerance for shit-eating. Or just a higher time preference. That's all there is to it, really.
Your view explains nothing other than belligerent and argumentative people don't like following rules or laws, which is so stupidly obvious that it is not notable or insightful to observe. Yeah, no shit. So what? I don't like going to my dentist, but that doesn't justify me punching her when I sit down in the chair, or not paying her a hundred bucks for a tooth cleaning.
It is generally accepted that the government, from time to time, can compel you to endure mildly annoying and discomforting situations for the benefit of the society it governs. That is how it has been since ante bellum.
Anyone who wants to pick a fight with dully appointed authority for no good reason is a moron. No, I don't need a strict definition. Gambling your life on the outcome of a speeding ticket or spreading your legs out on two seats on a subway is the province of morons. You are thinking that you are being clever, but you are actually being very stupid, enough that dismissing your opinion without debate is the most productive use of my time.
I see that you are one of those law-n-order conservatives who never expects to find himself on the wrong end of such a situation. I guarantee that if you ever do, you will feel the same visceral aversion to engaging in the appropriate submissive display as Mr. O'Keefe did; perhaps more so because you never expected it. And if you do indeed manage to engage in it, you will feel humiliated and ashamed over your submission, at least until you can concoct yourself some sort of rationalization.
You're leaving out the part where the person getting the speeding ticket actually was speeding. It's not knuckling under and being a cuck to admit that yeah going 50 in a 25 zone probably wasnt kosher, my bad.
More options
Context Copy link
But I would never find myself in such a situation precisely because I never engage in pointless dominance displays. I've been pulled over several times, I've always responded politely and it has neither been humiliating nor escalated. In fact, despite flagrantly speeding I have always gotten away with a warning and never actually received a ticket precisely because of unfailing politeness.
It is only humiliating if you choose to make it humiliating. I say yes sir and no sir to everyone I interact with in commerce, whether it is a cop or a taxi driver. And because I don't have a basketball mentality this doesn't cause me any psychological distress.
More options
Context Copy link
In high school, I bit a man because he was bullying me, in a sincere effort to do him harm.
But I didn't attack the teacher that was sent to collect me, and I certainly didn't scream at the police officer that I talked to.
It would have been very silly of me to do so. Childish.
I knew what I had done was shameful and wrong, but I didn't regret it. And since I had the intelligence of the average person, I didn't take it out on them. And I felt no shame for not quixotically attacking authority in the aftermath. I had already gained my satisfaction.
So you presume wrongly. I demand an apology.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link