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 -
I mean I agree that I want the state to have little say in any of those things too, but I also extend that to defining the gender of the Spawner on official bureaucrat forms. If you have similar small government sensibilities I'm not sure why you care if the pointless bureaucracy has dotted the right I and cross the right T in regards to which parent of a child is which gender. Giving the bureaucracy power means they will just use it against you when they get a similar chance.
Basic reality = Physical reality. Basic implies the most primitive, lowest, natural element. If you can't deploy any of your 5 senses on it does it "exist" in physical reality or is it a construct of human social belief?
This, though additional edits point to it being Science TM which it wasn't when I read it.
The scientific method is not the only epistemic method, nor the most complete one, but it is the least arbitrary and most self-correcting method available for grounding state action in basic reality. Or would you prefer a method far more biased and value driven? It would have the same problems, in far greater measures, that you are decrying above about grounding in basic reality.
Yes, absolutely.
I'm getting the sense that what you're advocating for a kind of State management system that relies heavily on empiricism for governing. I think this is incredibly foolish advocacy for technocracy and a kind of political Scientific Management.
On the hard problem side of things, this fails because of complexity. Society, a large economy, the legal system etc. simply interact too dynamically and in too complex of a network for any central authority to effectively model the current state of things. Let alone the idea of being able to create policy and accurately predict it's outcomes. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Social Security began as a well intentioned program to help out the poor elderly. It has metastasized to be an intergenerational grift. There are simply too many variables changing too often and interacting in non-obvious ways to able to come close to accurate modeling. When the State tries to do this, not only does it fail at its own stated goals, it often actively harms its own citizens, albeit in subtle ways.
This is why I want a state that is 100% value driven based on deontological principles. The original American Constitution is a great start, but was gradually altered by amendments and fundamentally corrupted by the 14th. It isn't a very long or complicated document and has little to nothing prescriptive to say.
I don't disagree with the logic of this statement, I just think it's impossible to implement. History is full of governments of various kinds saying, "no, this time it's different. We're going to be able to run the country based on hard facts and data." Number one, they can't in a very functional sense. Number 2, all decisions are at some level value based decisions. Humans can override their own hardwired instincts for self-preservation in extreme circumstances (family protection, self-sacrifice in combat, heroic deeds even beyond those two).
That could not be further than the truth. The world is complex and technocrats that think they can manage everything with a central authority fuck up on a grander scale than anyone. China is a planned economy and its technocrats are still paying for the fuckups from the last batch of mistakes from the technocrats several decades ago. Technocracy creates a system that ignores the human element of the world and in its tyranny it forces people to submit.
My preferred state only exists to solve collective coordination problems. It should do so rationality based on empiricism yes, but the empiricism of letting individuals decide their own actions. The empiricism of understanding how sociology, economics, and psychology work. Which is essentially a market. A deontological system could easily be one who's values are some shithole 3rd worldist state. I agree that science can never tell you how to act, or why, or what to value, it only tells you what is or is not. But I also don't think the government should be in the business of telling individuals why or what value and should just stick to protecting negative rights as the how.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link