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 in favor of having a healthy media that is conscientious of how the stories people spread can have negative effects in a democratic state, wherein people make their decisions, debate and vote largely based upon which sources of relevant information, traditional media or otherwise they consume. Naturally such an important facet of the public sphere must be both respected and recognized for the danger it poses in the hands of malicious actors, such as when the news incorrectly reported that Muslim voters were illegally family voting in a recent controversial election in England (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyxeqpzz2no). A more toxic and unhealthy media sphere is to the detriment of everybody, not just because it encourages people to vote for parties led by grifters taking advantage of popular sentiment, but also as it makes debate increasingly difficult since people increasingly begin being unable to converse with each other without using ad hominems or other argumentative fallacies.
I am in favor of voiding elections if credible suspicions of election interference are raised by trustworthy sources. Are you implying they made an inaccurate assessment of the situation?
Democracy is ultimately a goal to strive towards, but while it is inevitable that humanity will invariably embrace democracy given time, as people become more educated and rich, leading to a greater desire for individual fulfillment and self-actualization in the form of expressing their own personal views and affirming humanity as a whole, a blanket “colorless” election where no consideration is given to the likely results would just be self-destructive and detrimental to any given society. If a majority of the populace, by some means were made to vote for an undemocratic party with the intentions of destroying said democracy, I would certainly consider it justified for a minority to impede their efforts, even if it was in opposition to the “will of the people”. At that point, it becomes a purely utilitarian calculus where compromises on praxis become necessary to preserve the spirit of democracy. Long term, if nothing else the children and grandchildren of those anti-humanitarian party voters would be thankful for having been spared living under a brutal regime, just the same as the Germans of today are thankful for having been liberated from Nazi occupation.
You’re in favor of handing ultimate power to whatever constitutes “trustworthy sources”. I don’t even know what that looks like. Probably bureaucrats in the security state. Everything important to know will ultimately be classified. Call that system whatever you like. Doesn’t sound like democracy to me.
See, I won’t mind if you don’t especially value democracy. You’re a socialist, or a utilitarian, or an adherent of scientism, or whatever. You don’t believe in democracy as such, you just admire democracy if it can take you where you’re going. That’s fine, Erdogan famously said democracy was like a bus and he’d get off at his stop. Japanese nationalists and German bureaucrats alike have no problem admitting this is how they feel.
Just remember that we invented democracy as an alternative to war. And that’s what you’re eventually going to get if there is no democratic way to deport migrants who will inevitably need to be deported.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link