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 -
Yes, I can also conceive and witness problems caused by unregulated relationships. Does it change my position? Not really an inch on either issue.
Are you an anarcho-capitalist?
“Relationships” in the personal sense and the issues of immigration, including citizenship, are not really the same. In a better world, the whole world would be open borders (enforced by the one world government, of course) and the lamb would lay down next to the lion.
It’s not about the government being competent at it. Competent compared to what? It’s that it’s a situation where there’s no better alternative, similar to the related issue of national defense.
But then I’m a (bad) libertarian who thinks seat belt laws are justified on utilitarian grounds.
Are you against tobacco and alcohol? If not, is it a cost-benefit situation with very specific numbers and math, or something unique to seatbelts? The right to not wear a seatbelt is a natural consequence of self-ownership.
As I recall all of these things have been shown to if anything reduce total lifetime healthcare costs, as most of them tend to kill you relatively young (if at all) -- so before you have time to rack up a bunch of bills for long-term care and general age-related degeneration.
So I'm more curious about the actual nature of his utilitarian grounds than how he squares it with any sort of libertarianism.
Now adjust for lost productivity and taxes due to disability and/or early death.
Had we more sensible healthcare policy the gap would be even bigger.
Please refer to my second point -- your argument appears to allow for unbounded government intervention into career/life decisions of any kind. Retirement, for instance, would seem to be right out -- much less FIRE or hobo-ism.
I'm not sure what to call this system, but it is very not-libertarian.
I gotta say it’s funny to basically be advocating for good old-fashioned American style government with a GMU Econ-pilled approach and be told it’s verging on totalitarianism.
Not at all, it's a very popular normie position -- but it's not libertarianism. The specific arguments you are making do seem unbounded in the direction of totalitarianism, which I think is because you are trying to somehow encompass the libertarian label for whatever reasons. I suggest just saying that you think you and/or the government knows best what the citizenry should do with their bodies, and has the right to rule accordingly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
I suggest I know better than you about the range of ideas under the label of “libertarianism”.
My views on speech, guns, trade, and taxes put me pretty far from “popular” and “normie” in the US let alone globally, but it’s cute that you think you can extrapolate all that from my thinking seat belt laws are justified.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link