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 -
Freedom depends on uncertainty
This post is an abstract framing that the trade off between freedom and authoritarianism is a proxy for how uncertain we are.
I. Game Theory
Simple game theory problems are a domain where the goal is well defined and we can mathematically model optimal policies. In this extreme case "freedom" is meaningless.
The prisoners dilemma and the fish-farm coordination problem are examples where agents might behave in different ways (have some freedom), but the optimal global strategy is to eliminate those freedoms.
These coordination problems happen because of freedom to choose the 'wrong' option. The libertarian solution is to allow contracts (enforced by other contracts I guess) that reduce the agents' freedom. The authoritarian solution is to have some Leviathan enforce the optimal policy (for some self interested reason).
II. Creating Laws
If there's uncertainty about what policy leads to the best outcomes then solutions include some freedom.
Agents explore different policies and learn more about the situation. They can teach younger agents about which policies lead to better outcomes (mentoring).
Society can start with very simple rules like "don't eat those berries". Over time society has built up metis for understanding a lot about what kind of rules work.
Nowadays our laws are complicated, and we use police to enforce them. Rules are everywhere. Parents and teachers give lots of them to children, but there are also rules about what rules can be given.
These rules are enforced because authorities have better policies than the subjects. I think this is a good basis for why force is used in society at all. Like why we allow parents to have control over children.
However these situations also have a degree of freedom. Authorities can't make all the decisions for multiple practical reasons like aging. But also because they don't know what the best policy is. They know a lot about failure modes to avoid, but don't have all the answers. Leads to a hands off parent that stops their kid from seriously injuring anyone, but otherwise lets them roam.
III. Compromise the Laws
In the real world people also disagree about what the "the best outcome" looks like (if it even exists at all).
Sometimes they resolve this using violence. If a kid is following a bad policy they would be overruled. Criminals might be punished proportionally. Rival tribes conquered.
However this is limited because violence sucks, and hurts all combatants. So sometimes they compromise and create rules that acknowledge some uncertainty in end-goals. We get radical laws like the first amendment, and religious compromise.
This is speculation about history on my part: that historically this compromise was always reluctantly made. All the initial individuals were convinced that their way was the best way, but agree to be ruled by a blind system because it reduces violence. And then later the concept of freedom is concertized so that there are actually people born who earnestly believe in the uncertainty of end-outcomes.
IV. Increasing Agency
Then when there's uncertainty even about what the nature of "the best outcome" is (if it exists at all), authoritarianism starts to become incoherent.
You can no longer justify arbitrarily overruling others. The best rule we can use here is Kant's standard to "Act in such a way as to treat everyone always as an end and never merely as a means".
With actual uncertainty (instead of the reluctant compromise above), we get the things like The Spirit of the First Amendment. And radicals saying "I disagree with everything you stand for, but I will die for your right to say it".
The most authoritarian frame is paternalism about enabling the development of freedom in the student. Instead of directly enforcing policy, the teacher guides the student to avoid self defeating loops like drug/rage/greed/power/addiction. In this view a parent shouldn't dictate what end goal their child will pursue, but help them develop into themselves while avoiding traps and tricks.
It's about increasing agency to deal with uncertainty. The opposite of the game theory section were we spent all our efforts reducing agency.
V. True Neutral
Finally with total uncertainty about what "the best outcome looks like" we get a sort of nihilism. I don't know enough to contrast this nihilism with other philosopher's understanding of the term. In this case it's a complete rejection of authoritarianism in the abstract.
I see it as a True Neutral saying "whatever happens, happens".
We can't even justify limited paternalism. Suppose I am powerful and notice some small entity is acting in self destructive ways. Something like small weak creatures are being authoritarian to each-other. I could easily interfere to increase freedom of their system, but what makes me sure that increasing freedom is even a valuable? Only physics will determine what happens to those creatures.
VI. Summary
In low uncertainty environments authoritarianism is natural and optimal. As uncertainty increases authoritarianism becomes worse and worse, until becoming incoherent as a concept.
I think this dynamic is fundamental to how these concepts interact. And provides a useful framework for talking about freedom in various settings.
More options
Context Copy link