site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 10, 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.

14
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

  1. Empathy doesn’t scale because it is clearly a case where local knowledge and prudence is needed to prevent it getting out of hand. In marriages, that role is generally the father.

  2. I too would support repealing female suffrage. But I wouldn’t stop there. Only men that own real property or have kids should be able to vote (skin in the game).

Only men that own real property or have kids should be able to vote (skin in the game).

Anyone capable of being arrested, paying taxes, or otherwise being subject to regulation (or even being drafted into the military) has skin in the game.

Back when the franchise was restricted to landowners, the government was a lot smaller and not an overwhelming presence in people's lives.

Back when the franchise was restricted to landowners, the government was a lot smaller and not an overwhelming presence in people's lives.

Back when the franchise in the US was restricted to landowners, the government was enforcing slavery, which is the least libertarian policy imaginable. And 9 out of the original 13 States had established religion, which is a pretty overwhelming presence in people's lives in a society where most people actually believed in their own religion.

Yes and hopefully it goes back to that (ie maybe there was a correlation between limited franchise and limited government)

Apartheid S Africa had a very limited franchise and didn’t have a notably small government.

Perhaps but is there more or less government today in SA? Probably depends. SA arguably is worse off for everyone today

Dunno. Apartheid SA was probably more tyrannical, but had less bureaucracy.

I don’t think constantly checking peoples id cards counts as less bureaucracy. I guess it counts for the whites that would never be checked, but for the Coloureds and Bantus it mattered a lot.