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 -
I don’t know why these people find it tough. It just isn’t. Don’t censor. But someone said something I consider naughty? Who the fuck cares.
That was the old attitude of those fighting censorship. Aw, you don't like sex/naughty words/other things, you prude? Well then just don't read or look at that stuff. Anyone has the right to say anything they want.
Of course, that couldn't last long in the pure state, because (1) okay so are you saying it's really okay to spew lies about people and call for their murder? and (2) some of the people who were fighting censorship were only doing it because it was their views or wishes that were being censored; when they got the right to say/write what they wanted, they soon moved on to "no, you can't say/write that because it's hate speech or violence". In other words, they were not committed to fighting censorship, they wanted the power and authority to censor what they didn't like.
EDIT: My natural instincts are pro-censorship. There are things I think are harmful or stupid or wrong and should not be publicised. I've had to consciously make myself more 'tolerant' on this, and then when I finally get to the point of "okay, I may not agree with it, I may not like it, but they have the right to say it", then the liberal side goes for "now we have the upper hand, censorship is okay!"
I’m fine with libel laws and the incitement standards. They are robust narrowly defined set of rules (I would overturn NYT v Sullivan).
And yes, there is a problem that some people only like free speech when it’s their speech that is being censored. I am honestly okay with allowing progressives, commies, Nazis, or even the Amish to have free speech rights.
Honestly I don’t think you are being intellectually honest saying your fine with those people having free speech.
If the commies were in position to actually win and their numbers just went from 20 to 30% and you knew in 5 years they would succeed taking over every institution and you would suddenly being living in Mao China then you would not say you support free speech for them.
Let’s say you are Musks. You own twitter. You can hit a red button let’s call it the deplatform button. If you hit it the commies lose momentum and disappear. If you don’t hit it then you live in communists china in 5 years.
I would not believe you if you told me you won’t hit the red button. You are fine with them having free speech provided they are small and not in charge of real power. But that changes quickly if their free speech leads to winning the ideology battle.
The point of free speech is
Speech = win battle of ideology = win power = enforce their ideology on you
"Imagine you are richest man in Russia who (among other things) owns largest network of newspaper kiosks in St. Petersburg in April 1917. Would you stop selling Pravda if it is the only way to stop the dastardly commies?"
This is hypothetical scenario unconnected to real life.
1/Nowhere in history communists won due to "free speech" , nowhere communists won by convincing majority on free marketplace of ideas that communism is the best thing since sliced bread. Countries where communists prevailed were countries that practiced heavy censorship (at the time), it did not helped.
Closest example is possibly Czechoslovakia after WW2, but it was heavily managed "democracy" with only four political parties(and their newspapers) alloved and all criticism of Soviet Union treated as fascist treason.
2/ In situation where communists are in such ascendancy and ready to take power, they now have their political party, trade unions, organizations of all kind (including well armed militias) and their own newspapers, radio, TV stations and, in modern conditions, their equivalent of Twitter.
Does Elon have any comprehensible "ideology"? He is against long list of things (that changes every week), but what exactly is he for? What he wants the world look like?
I think his core is what I’ve heard to as Victorian ideology. Striving to still do great things. I think he probably has a great deal of HBD realism probably even magnified by his experience in S Africa and it now being a failing state.
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