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 -
In my bubble (urban center-left progressive people with an academic background), the belief seems to be that the elites and the rich are somehow hoarding resources that, if unleashed and distributed equally, would make these concerns go away almost immediately.
Unfortunately, this isn't even true in the terms it's most frequently formulated in, i.e. finances, as explained by GP already, but it's even more inane when thinking about actual material things. The more intellectual fellow travelers of this protest movement have been complaining about worsening wealth inequality for years, but very few among them understand that this doesn't imply that people like Musk or Bezos actually personally consume vastly disproportionate amounts of apples, electricity or graphics cards that could, when redistributed, significantly lift up living standards among the masses.
It's strange that a movement with a titanic ideological progenitor writing volumes about materialism, labor, means of production, goods and services etc. has become so entangled with financialist thinking, something that was originally associated with their Capitalist enemies, that they have broadly come to believe that any problem can be solved by manipulating the dynamics of fancy green paper, that a problem as simple as "the average member of society is becoming an unproductive old person consuming lots of healthcare" doesn't strike them as a meaningful issue that no amount of playing around with the abstractions that we use to organize the economy will solve.
These people would, rightly imo, respond that they don't just believe in the manipulation of numbers and that they do agree there's an underlying reality: immigration is offered as a curative for precisely this reason, and
gibs for young peoplesocial welfare policies are often justified on the grounds that they'd improve fertility.YMMV on these as empirical claims.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link