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 -
The only meaningful issue I have/had with the ultra wealthy is the possibility of influence on politics, and it does seem somewhat the case but I've become less convinced it matters that much. Despite the flood of money into politics, things seem to be getting worse and worse for our business environment. Even our first billionaire president is literally a big government anti market populist who holds little difference on many topics from the stereotypical redneck and would make many so called commies blush with his strong central planning desires.
Bribery and fraud happens from time to time for specific sectors but most political corruption still seems to be the type that's handing out contracts to your friend's company or whatever. I'm open to the idea that rich people have outsized influence but when we have blue socialist vs red socialist it's hard to see how money actually matters that much for politics as opposed to just general idealogies.
I increasingly think it might even be the other way around; The more you limit the powerful people on the free market, the more the powerful will move into the state and other entities that are harder to control since they are the control. Plenty of ultra-rich are happy to let you do whatever you want as long as you let them do whatever they want. But if the same person is instead managing giant flows of money that aren't actually theirs but technically belong to the people, it's suddenly at the minimum their business to control your behaviour insofar as it concerns that flow of money. And unlike the free market, where they need to find a way to offer you a deal or product that sounds good enough, if they are in the state, they can just straight-up force you. And often enough, that taste of power will only grow; If you're already controlling people, you'll find excuses to extend that control. For their own good, of course.
The key mistake IMO lies in the idea that money equals power. No, money is primarily a consumptive element of power. You can always trivially convert money into gaming consoles, vacations, yachts or any other consumptive good. Once you try to convert it into other elements of power, you'll have to expect losses and/or require sufficient skill to do it correctly: If you want to create something new, you need a good idea and the capability of running at the very least a lab, possibly a lean&mean start-up, often against much larger, established companies with massive legal moats. If you want to change or manipulate society, you need charisma and social acumen. If you want to simply force people to submit, you need to get control of the government, and those who already control it will not appreciate your meddling. A minimum amount of money is certainly required to get things off the ground, but you don't need to be ultra-rich. Upper-middle class money and/or a bank loan is often already enough for most purposes.
More options
Context Copy link
Things getting worse and worse for the business environment is one of the explicit goals and purpose of money in politics. Capture, both regulatory and otherwise, is the point. It increases the barrier to entry, benefits the incumbents, and prevents disruption from newer and more agile players.
The social media giants will bend over backwards to accommodate the state's demand for surveillance and age-gating of online platforms, as the more compliance hurdles there are, it makes it harder for them to be supplanted. Their eager capitulation will grow only more fawning as long as they're never held accountable for what people do using their platforms.
Government likes this, because they like playing kingmaker.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link