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 -
Why? What is "legitimacy," anyway? The difference between "Don Corleone" and "King Vito I" isn't that one has "legitimacy" and the other doesn't, it's whether or not there's a bigger, stronger "stationary bandit." Whatever group can most credibly tell you "follow this rule or I hurt you" is the government (and that's what "government" simply is).
I wish I could remember where I encountered the argument that Westerners deeply misunderstand the "Mandate of Heaven," mistaking it for a Chinese "divine right of kings" when it's really a much more materialist concept. That what it really means is that "legitimacy" follows from — is a product of — the de facto exercise of imperial power. Whoever most performs the functions of government (however badly) is the government (until someone else is actually doing it better).
…but what makes you think this is possible? Both in terms of the forces in opposition, and the qualities of the people in question?
My limited understanding of the concept is that it is definitely not that. If you lose power and the rebels are successful and start their own dynasty and govern the nation, then you lost the Mandate of Heaven for Reasons later rationalised by historians and scholars, and the new lot are now in possession of said mandate.
Like the verse says:
It's a means whereby the new Emperor claims continuity and legitimacy; he now possesses the Mandate of Heaven which passed on to him because the previous bunch were bad rulers and misgoverned the country and spent the state treasury on hookers and blow, and corrupt ministers drove the peasants to starvation etc. Thus the new dynasts have a rightful claim on your loyalty as a subject, and they certainly are not traitors and rebels.
Something like Henry VII walking out of the mess of the Wars of the Roses as last man standing and claiming legitimacy by right of descent through his mother from the House of Lancaster, something rather shaky as there were others with just as good or even better claims (in his son's reign, the Poles - because of their mother, who was one of the last remaining members of the House of Plantagenet - were still a threat to Henry VIII as possible rival claimants). Henry VII bolstered his grip on the throne by marrying Elizabeth of York and so presenting a 'union' of the two rival houses for the throne. In Chinese terms, this was his claim to the Mandate of Heaven: presenting himself as a legitimate heir and married to the legitimate heiress of the rival house.
More options
Context Copy link
I believe that where this regime is taking us is evil, and inhumane, possibly also unsustainable... and I don't wanna go there.
Varys: Three great men sit in a room. A king, a priest and a rich man. Between them stands a common Sellsword. Each great man bids the Sellsword kill the other two. Who lives, who dies?
Tyrion Lannister: Depends on the Sellsword.
Varys: Does it? He has neither crown nor gold nor favor with the Gods.
Tyrion Lannister: He has a sword, the power of life and death.
Varys: But if it's swordsmen who rule, why do we pretend Kings hold all the power? When Ned Stark lost his head, who was truly responsible? Joffrey? The executioner? Or something else?
Tyrion Lannister: I've decided I don't like riddles.
Varys: Power resides where men believe it resides. It's a trick, a shadow on the wall. And a very small man can cast a very large shadow.
For one thing, I don't think it matters. Sometimes you need to fight even if you lose. For another, like I mentioned, I don't believe that what the powers that be want is particularly sustainable, surviving as a coherent group for long enough might be all it takes.
Agreed — particularly on the unsustainable, at least in the very long term.
But where I differ is that it doesn't matter how much you or I or anyone else "don't wanna go there," there's nothing we can do about it. It's inevitable. So what does convincing people that the establishment is "illegitimate" matter? What difference can it possibly make?
Arguing from fictional evidence (and not very good, at that).
Not if losing is guaranteed. An unwinnable battle is never worth fighting.
Sure, but I think there's enough civilizational "seed corn" for it to consume to keep it going longer than the rest of us can hold out (which is why I also expect them to take out industrial civilization with them when they go — permanently, given that an industrial revolution is a once-per-planet event).
Ride out with me. Ride out an meet them!
Oh, right, you don't like references to fiction. Ok, to be honest, I'm not saying we should meet them in battle, my assessment of that being suicidal is more or less the same as yours. I was recently made fun of for my plan boiling down to "let's stick together", but yeah, unironically this. They had to wait a while, but it worked for the Jews.
Hey, you asked me for a definition. Ok, so it wasn't an an encyclopedia excerpt, but I thought it did the job. Do definitions require evidence?
So teach your children the ways of the Amish, except that pacifism is bullshit, and that they also need to learn HEMA. I can't guarantee your descendants surviving, but if enough of us do it, some part of us may survive in those that do.
I don't have any (it takes two to tango, after all).
Again, I'm not sure anyone in "the West" — or East Asia, for that matter — survives the coming collapse; that is, if our species survives it at all. (And if so, for how long?)
Well then - Step 1 is find a Mrs. Capital_Room, and make a bunch Secondary_Rooms. Step 2 is teach them HEMA.
Shit, I don't know either, but I can guarantee no descendants of yours survive, if you don't have any!
I'm in my mid-40s and still no success there whatsoever.
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
I'm not saying the government is well-versed in leadership strategy. Surely, though, you can see why there would want to be a façade over this reality. There has to be an attempt at showing that the government is doing things to improve the lives of the people it rules.
I'm not interested in a stick-only approach - I want carrots. This is how a government would get more of my compliance. This is how you would get me to not press the red button and vote for Trump as he sits in a cell. I'm still convinced that his win in 2016 was mostly driven by the populace trying to signal this: "more carrots, or else".
Not really.
Perhaps, but not that much of one, I'd say. What do you suppose the average 3rd Century BC Chinese peasant felt about what Qin Shi Huangdi was doing to improve his life (imposing an infamously-harsh legal code and conscripting him to start building the impressive-but-useless boondoggle known as the Great Wall)? What sort of "carrot" was dangled before the average Neo-Assyrian subject during the reign of Ashurbanipal?
The point of the "stationary bandit model" is that the stationary bandit is, by his nature as such, preferable to the mobile bandit. The primary "carrot" for most regimes has been protection from said mobile bandits, and that looks to have been enough for the majority of recorded history.
When it comes for "improv[ing] the lives of the people," you don't have to be all that great, you just have to be better, in the eyes of enough people, than Lord Humungus.
And the elite reply, near as I can tell, continues to be "no carrots for you, and what 'or else,' anyway?"
I'd say that last is the real question. Or else what, exactly?
There doesn't need to be a trigger for an armed resolution. How much political blood and treasure has the ruling class expended to kill Trump? Why spend all this effort when the average voter is a sheep just begging for slaughter?
If they weren't being such obviously hypocritical liars things would be easier. Perhaps it's worth the expense to see how far they can push.
Probably very little — particularly relative to the amount at their disposal — given he's still alive.
Because their own self-understanding and self-image require the pretense of a casus belli before they can really stick it to the other tribe (like so many of my classmates at Caltech deeply wanted to).
A person I follow on tumblr once reminisced about his college days and mentioned hanging out with students from upper-class backgrounds who would opine on "the world-historical necessity of Flyover genocide." What if that is how far they can push? Is it really still worth the risk?
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