site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 3, 2023

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.

12
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I do recognize more important ones, which is why I said "one might think that few things are" instead of "one might think that nothing is".

Within the framework of supporting liberal values I can see no rational argument for banning the freedom of ingestion. I understand the authoritarian argument for banning recreational drugs. Authoritarians in general are fine with using the power of the state to create the kinds of societies that they want even if it means substantially restricting personal freedom. While I am not an authoritarian, I can imagine why if I did have a preference for authoritarianism, I might be in favor of banning drugs in order to sculpt society into what I wished it to be. However, in a country that prides itself on liberty the bans on recreational drugs seem nonsensical and hypocritical to me.

Many conservatives in particular are guilty of such hypocrisy. Every argument that I can think of in favor of the right to bear arms can be applied also to the right to consume recreational drugs. Even the argument that "guns help one to protect one's freedom from the government" has a parallel argument in favor of legal drugs: "legal drugs can help one to get to know oneself better and to achieve insights, which in turn increases the individual's ability to resist government power". Someone might argue that most drug users do not use drugs for these purposes. But then, if push came to shove and the boogaloo started probably most gun owners would not join a militia and go fight the government either. But some would.

"legal drugs can help one to get to know oneself better and to achieve insights, which in turn increases the individual's ability to resist government power"

I find this every bit as specious as the people who talk about drug legalization in terms of “the government wants to stop me from putting a particular plant in my body.” Those people know as well as I do that crystal meth is not a plant, but rather a complex chemical concoction literally designed to turn a normal person into an aggressive and unstoppable violence machine; and you know as well as I do that PCP and fentanyl are not used by anybody to “achieve insights”. That’s not what they’re for, and it’s not a plausible effect of those drugs. Using a justification that makes perfect sense to justify, say, LSD, and trying to smuggle in the legalization of PCP and fentanyl and meth… that’s dishonest. It’s the epitome of the non-central fallacy, and I trust that you are smart enough to be employing that argument cynically, rather than actually believing in it.

you can address drug addiction induced violence by punishing the violent people, its unfair to ban the drug thereby punishing nonviolent users.

No, you cannot, because deterrence does not work when everyone thinks "well I can just not be violent on drugs".

Imagine being the victim of that extremely predictable and preventable violence, and being told, “It’s fine, we needed to wait until after he did the thing we all knew he was going to do. Sorry it had to be you that it happened to.” If it were me I’d sure be pretty fucking miffed that nobody did what needed to be done before I became the victim of violence.

Im pretty sure that cocaine does not turn all of its users into violent criminals, but lets imagine that it does. In that case my response is that I don't want my tax money going to contribute to the state trying to eliminate this trade because I would rather keep that money to myself and do something else with it.