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 -
Still not sure how that idea even works. If you’re a libertarian up to the borders then you shouldn’t be a libertarian at all. Makes me think of Erdogan’s quote about democracy:
In one sense they care about freedom a lot and in another they don’t care about it at all. Most societies on Earth aren’t actively restricting people’s freedom of movement or motion, but you can feel when you can’t openly discuss a particular issue or criticize the government. And in the US the same condition is present, even with an explicit commitment to free speech. Where the difference lies is that your right to speech doesn’t protect you from criticism, lost social opportunities or other forms of non-violent retribution. What it does do is prevent the government from suppressing your right to speak.
Americans take freedom of speech for granted and don’t recognize its significance until the moment someone comes along and takes it away from them.
The current political paradigm fails though because it doesn’t recognize that borders aren’t just geographic demarcation lines. Borders are also social and economic between people in societies. When legitimacy and central authority begin to fray, governance defaults to the local. Afghan militias followed ethnic lines. In Iraq it was sectarian and it’s interesting to observe how these fiefs and warlord societies formalize into legitimate states over time. Beneath all sovereign governments you’ve still got the power networks of para-sovereigns in society that you have to deal with. They don’t own land outright but effectively control autonomous zones. Gangs do this in the west. ISIS did this in Iraq and Syria. The CCP in China did this under Mao and then successfully took over the government.
If you’ve ever read about the history of Congo they are a great case that makes the point. In the east you had rebel commanders like Laurent Nkunda and Mai-Mai leaders that acted as sovereigns. They taxed mines and border crossings and directly negotiated with multinational firms. It blurred the lines between where rebellion and legitimate rulership began.
In Liberia and Sierra Leone, Charles Taylor benefitted enormously from the blood diamond trade back in the 90’s and used widespread violence on the populations but also held territory. Even though it was brutal, one consequence that fell out of that was that it imposed discipline on the population and they built basic services and then transitioned into a formally recognized power when he won the Liberian presidency. Later he of course resigned under enormous international pressure but it was a testament to how deeply his rule became entrenched.
Modern libertarianism has basically concluded the only people capable of living in a libertarian society are whites (some factions).
That is where up to the borders I assume comes from.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link