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’m not convinced that multiculturalism doesn’t need some speech suppression, it can sort of coast in periods of prosperity without it, but when you create a situation where it’s obvious that there’s not enough goodies to give the majority of people the good life, it falls apart quickly, and even with speech controls in place it’s hard to keep tribalism at bay.
Maybe don't do that then? (This is why I find the leftist embrace of Gaianist degrowtherism to be less than logically coherent with their stated commitments to "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité", and lean more toward Leigh Phillips Thought as a more effective route to the realisation of those principles.)
EDIT: I have realised that there is a grammatical ambiguity in my response. The 'that' which you ought not to do refers to 'create a situation where...', not to 'give the majority of people...'.
We apologise for the inconvenience.
So you deliberately destroy the economy so that nobody gets anything above bare survival? The issue is that competition for resources in a situation where the people involved have enough differences to matter means that they become much more tribal than they would otherwise. And as such it’s inevitable unless you find a way to always either have absolutely nothing available to fight over, or so many resources that everyone can have everything they want and still have enough left. If you’re not in either of those conditions, you’re going to have tribalism.
Integration sort of worked in the 1960s because it was part of the American golden age in which everyone could reasonably expect that a modicum of effort would allow them to own a house and a car and their kids could go to an affordable college and land a white collar job. In 2026, that’s no longer the case, homes are out of reach for most people, secure jobs are hard to get even as college becomes virtually unaffordable for most people. In that Situation, it’s easy to fall into tribalism and work to make sure that whatever resources available go to people like you, rather than some other tribe.
No. I said that I am against degrowth.
I am aiming for the latter. I apologise if that wasn't clear.
That's the problem we need to solve.
The thesis of the linked monograph is, roughly paraphrased, is "Don't smash the machine, take it over!"; the machine being large-scale industrial production, which Mr Phillips desires be managed via the ballot box.
You can aim for it, but the planet is finite, so im not convinced you can just make large amounts of everything available. Take housing. If you’re going to ensure everyone has access to a nice home of 3-4 bedrooms and maybe 1/8 an acre of land you are limited to the inhabitable land in the USA and even then you need to be near places with jobs. You basically cannot do this. You can maybe give everyone a car, or maybe cheap consumer goods.
Planet?
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