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 -
Imagine someone was raised in a country where the Holocaust is officially denied, and then goes to college in a country such as Finland or Germany in which denying the Holocaust is a crime. This student is genuinely uncertain if the Holocaust occurred, and starts conversations about the Holocaust with his classmates and presents arguments he was given as a child about why the Holocaust was faked by powerful interests. He is sternly told that it is a criminal offense to bring up such arguments. If he is a good Bayesian, how should this criminality cause him to update? (Of course, I don't think the Holocaust was faked.)
The Netherlands has laws on the books as-is, and this doesn't happen. So much so that I've seen your precise exact situation play out in university, and the resulting answer not being 'WRONGTHINK BAD' but 'here you go, you can look at these things.'
If one were to point someone to incontrovertible evidence that the Third Reich tried to systematically murder every Jew in Europe, what would that be?
It'd be the subject of any-odd number of boring history classes university students go through to get their education.
Maybe I asked the wrong question since you chose to answer a different one, do you need me to rephrase?
I'm not a Dutch legal expert, and neither are you. All I know is that these things are discussed without anyone being jailed, prosecuted, or even told this'll invite legal trouble.
Not any more.
This has effectively been law since at least 1995, when the courts ruled that holocaust denial is a crime; the recent addendum is effectively codifying legal principles that have been around for a generation. I'm not a fan, either, but the chilling effect on honest discourse isn't there.
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
More options
Context Copy link
An Iranian student in Finland would then be deciding which government is lying to him, and he presumably has strong priors in that regard already.
More options
Context Copy link
Presumably, in case of Finland, that would depend on the actual formulation and application of the law, which doesn’t actually exist yet (expect as a proposal).
More options
Context Copy link
Is weeding out those who have trouble with resolving the confusion towards "whatever the overwhelming societal consensus backed by the local monopoly on violence wants me to believe" a bug or a feature? Society's wheels are greased with a million falsehoods, oversimplifications and truths that are too hard to verify for the vast majority of people, and not all of them are as memetically reinforced as this one. Perhaps having a conspicuous honeypot (which I'd also estimate to be in the third category, even if some cosmetic details may be fudged, which only serves to raise its attractiveness) is better than letting the compulsive contrarians advance through society and wind up somewhere where they can do real damage.
Feels like a feature to rulers, but is a bug.
People bred for compliance tend to get conquered.
I don't know about that. If I try to think of particularly low-agreeableness/insubordinate peoples, the ones that come to mind are marginal ethnic groups like Chechens and Borderers, who historically tended to be brought to heel by adjacent empires with superior state capacity enabled by having access to a deep pool of soldiers and bureaucrats.
You've inverted the criterion. You should look at societies that have successfully eliminated dissent, not societies that are entirely made of dissenters.
What happened to China, the perpetually great Empire that invested significant cultural, technological and political capital to make its population as docile as possible? What happened to the Ottomans, who had comparable technology to Europeeans and then banned the printing press? What happened to the Soviet Union, whose dissenters turned a backwater laggard into a superpower but enforced strict ideological conformity?
State capacity is only useful if you can wield it effectively, and eliminating dissent eventually prevents this.
If it did, it failed. Chinese history is history of endless revolts, urprisings and civil wars, revolts that sometimes succeeded.
Traditional China based on "mandate of heaven" ideology effectively justified and encouraged revolt, Christian Europe based of "noble blood" and "divine right to rule" made revolt blasphemy and effectively eliminated dissent from the lower classes. In China, common peasant overthrowing Son of Heaven and stepping on his place was SOP, in Europe peasant becoming king was something unthinkable.
In China, every peasant boy knew he could be emperor when he grows up (and finds few friends to help him). In Europe, every peasant knew that God made peasant a peasant and king a king, and dispute it was to dispute God himself.
No surprise that European history was history of stable society where kings and nobles ruled undisputed for millenia, while Chinese history was chaotic one where everything was burned down regularly every two or three centuries.
When/where in Europe are you thinking about, specifically?
More options
Context Copy link
People say this, but the person I associate most with divine right is not Charles I, but Oliver Cromwell - who genuinely believed that God had ordained him as ruler of England. The strong religious beliefs in Europe did not lead to peace and unity, but the opposite - to decades of war as men sought to topple ungodly or heretical princes. And far from crushing dissent, the early modern period saw the birth of liberalism. John Locke and John Lilburne were the contemporaries to Oliver Cromwell.
More options
Context Copy link
This is not a particularly accurate summation of events. European feudal monarchies in the sense that we understand them crystalized in the breakup of the Carolingian empire, where might most definitely made right rather than strict blood claims making right. The history of the middle ages is then one of near constant warfare over who ruled what, resolved generally by might makes right, with blood claims added as a legitimizing principle. And then of course with the wars of the protestant reformation the whole system gets overturned, absolutism only lasts for a few centuries(a century in England, two in France and most of the rest of the continent, and it never took hold in the Netherlands) and was never a particularly stable equilibrium anyways.
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
Is... is one allowed to ask where said society is heading when the wheels are being greased so readily but it appears you can't switch which direction you're traveling?
I am fundamentally unconvinced that 'compulsive contrarians' are more likely to cause damage than any other person who seeks out and obtains power.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link