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 -
Are you sure that you're not trying to slip collectivism and religion into your proposed solution to the problems caused by some young men's woes in the same kind of way that some climate change activists try to slip communism in with their proposed climate change solutions?
I'm sure that that is exactly what I'm trying to do. I'm not trying to slip it in. To quote the original post:
I'm not even sure what kind of argumentation you're using here. It's like mini-maxing what I explicitly said as I kind of snide way of cultivating doubt? It's strange, that's for sure.
If you want to get into a discussion about proposed solutions and their cost / benefit profile, I'm all for it! But, cards on the table first - do you see the current "liberal order" of things to be all well and good?
Got it. Sorry for misreading your post.
No. Given the current different political groups that we have in the West, I think that the current liberal order is better on the whole than any new order that is actually likely to take power if the current liberal order is replaced. However, I believe that the current liberal order needs some modifications, as long as they're done in a way that doesn't destroy the core liberalness of it.
Thanks.
I believe that the current liberal order will, inevitably, destroy itself and fall into fundamental illiberalism - actually, something quite close to tyranny or at least a kind of state-corporate oligarch - regardless of any "modifications."
We can quibble about the "actually likely" phrase, but, generally, I disagree with this. I think there are alternatives to the current liberal order - that have existed in the past - that are fundamentally better. No, I am not talking about returning to pre-Westphalian Europe or something. I believe the "Old Right" conservatism that existed in some form or another from roughly the end of World War One to the Civil Rights Act (So, let's call it 1920 - 1965 to use round numbers) was the best political philosophy. It was hugely disrupted by FDR - first King of America - and then eradicated entirely by the 1964 CRA. The Warren Court of the 1970s salted its grave.
That "Old Right" conservatism was largely liberal by my standards. To the extent that some of them supported segregation based on race rather than more individual characteristics, I think they were illiberal. But liberalism, at least in my sense of the word, does not require that a country allow huge amounts of unvetted or barely-vetted foreigners to enter. Liberalism can be pragmatic, it just has to be fundamentally based on and strive for the ethos of judging people on their individual characteristics, and on meritocracy.
On a side note, this is where I disagree with the more right-libertarian interpretations of liberalism as being best served by hyper-capitalism. I appreciate capitalism, but capitalism as it exists, because of inheritance, is not a meritocracy.
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