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 -
Up until now the conversation within Germany and Europe at large concerning what to do concerning the ever-preeminent rise of populistic parties, largely directed and funded by Russian money while deriving their support from a sensationalist media which amplifies any individual instances of so-called immigrant violence, hasn’t really amounted to much meaningful policy changes to actually suppress these unconstitutional and antagonistic groups.
In Germany specifically this is in spite of the fact that the AFD has already been declared an anti-democratic tendency by the German federal office for the preservation of the constitution, who is supposed to be the go-to authority to defer to on matters such as this. Even so, politicians are today afraid of actually pursuing this declaration to it’s logical conclusion by actually enforcing a ban on the party in question, with people today saying that doing so would be an “anti-democratic” action supposedly (and of course when the AFD wasn’t popular, it wasn’t appropriate to ban them either given their low popularity, with the implication being that banning these antagonistic parties is never appropriate until they are within the halls of power?).
In Britain a similar story has been repeated, wherein government hesitation to pursue an outlawing of unconstitutional parties like Reform and Restore in spite of their unconstitutionality necessarily depriving them of the protections of assembly, since there is no democracy outside the nation state which is the guarantor of freedoms and rights for people, and necessarily that seeking it’s abolition are (morally but not necessarily legally) outside it’s protections.
The problem today is simply put that democracies are still based on antiquated ideas, inherited from the enlightenment, that haven’t been able to keep up with modern technological and sociological changes which now threaten to upturn the rules based international order which was created following the second world war. As such, for any humanitarian concerned about this matter, I think it is imperative for us to find potential solutions going forward which might help democracy develop in a healthy fashion and oppose those tendencies contrary to it.
One very promising idea among others would be to clearly restrict and define what constitutes a political party, supposing (for the sake of argument in this instance) that there should be three primary political tendencies which every legal party must adhere to.
The first of these is the Third Way position of Tony Blair and Gerhard Schröder, in Social Democrat fashion, which we already know can be trusted to uphold sensible economic and societal policy. The second is the more centrist “liberal” tendency (of course, all of these are liberal in some sense or another), being generally pro individual freedoms, freedom of expression and congregation (so long as no anti-democratic tendencies or hate speech is spread, as hate speech is not free speech), following a humanist policy position. The third is the “conservative” right-wing position, in the vein of Reagan and George H. W. Bush, believing in individual freedoms, little market intervention and a certain support for religious institutions (within limits). The traditional right has unfortunately been infiltrated to a certain extent by this populist tendency, but hopefully a more reasonable path is still reachable for those politicians seeking the best for their country.
In this system I’m suggesting all parties as stated will adhere to some extent to one of these three positions, and those who are opposed to it will have to be disbanded or reformed to be eligible to participate in elections. Similarly, the creation of new parties must require the approval of an office capable of judging the conformity of these new groups, and former leaders within disbanded organisations must be monitored to ascertain that they pose no threat to the state or the people it’s sworn to protect. Thankfully the need to have a permit in order to protest is already a well-established norm within many western countries, so riots and disorder can be kept to a minimum, and perpetrators punished accordingly should they break the law.
In this sense I feel such an improvement would drastically help shore up the defence of these western states, which have largely been ineffective at opposing the rising trend of misinformation and disorder.
If a political position becomes popular enough to merit democratic political representation, but the political system declares that that position is a priori illegitimate and anti-democratic, there are only two options:
That's all
Scott Adams had a quip similar to this with Democrats and Trump: You successfully convinced the public that Trump is Hitler. Hitler won. Now what?
In this case it's especially damaging because the "anti-democratic" position that nobody is allowed to express except for AFD and Restore and other such parties is that migrants should be deported and European countries should stay demographically European. You basically can't keep a lid on that. "Democracy can't allow mass deportations." Two guesses what happens next
The issue in question is largely the result of the prior mentioned difficulties which western democracies have faced in attempting to handle the rise of anti-democratic elements within their societies. If more legalistic methods had been applied to suppress disinformation from social media sources and the papers were held liable for misinforming the public, this trend could have been “strangled in the crib”, so to speak.
Even given the current unfavourable circumstances however, a solution can certainly be reached to resolve the issue. If you look at the 2024 Romanian presidential election for instance, the results which favoured a right-wing populistic party was annulled after irregularities were discovered which had shown clear interference from outsider forces to bring an anti-Atlanticist candidate into power. Although you saw some minor rabblerousing on the part of anti-establishment party members, after Dan was inaugurated, the protesting quieted down, and the populace hence have largely agreed that cancelling the incumbent’s candidacy was the correct move.
The preoccupation with calling the actions of constitutional governments “anti-democratic” is well understood as a tactic used by forces hostile to democracy, who nevertheless seek to subvert it by using the “tools of the enemy” against itself. It’s not a principled position, nor is it a consistent one, but rather a purely practical and cynical attempt at evading the force of the law. In the long run of course, giving credence and space for these sorts of groups to grow will only ever be to the detriment of the state, since such parties will find any means of reaching power, playing up their constitutional credentials only until they’re in a position to fully grasp the levers of the state. These self-same constitutional rights, freedom of speech, religion, woman’s rights and so on will doubtless be sacrificed first following this, and any prior statements concerning their belief in liberalism and democracy will be memory holed to fit the next narrative they’ll pedal.
So you're in favor of eliminating the first amendment and freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
So you're in favor of voiding elections if forces in the security state allege that they are invalid.
Ok, you can continue to call yourself democratic while suppressing the press and election results you consider anti-democratic. But that's not what most people understand those words to mean.
By the terms most people understand, you are suppressing democratic freedoms to entrench a regime you are calling Democratic. In this scheme Democracy isn't about freedom of the press or free and open elections, but about moderate liberal and conservative parties sharing a monopoly on power. I take it that parties such as Restore and AfD (which represent significant sizes of the electorate) are a priori not democratic. Maybe because they promote mass deportation. Democracy is about never allowing parties that support mass deportation to come to power. Elections are secondary.
Ok, you can invent whatever definitions you want. But most voters are wise to this trick by now and you are not going to get much traction here by advancing it.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link