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 wonder where does this end. Like in Ukraine stopping elections altogether.
New drafts as some figures have started calling now.
The process of machiavelian behavior of what are called democracies is not new. Especially of lobbies that control politicians and the CIA with its fronts and reach in media, social media. Another problem has been western elites refusal to follow public demands on certain very immportant issues, especially mass migration. Rule by the people, FOR the people most importantly has been a massive problem while in certain issues, Putin and Xi who also have ruled more for their people. At least in terms of being more supportive of a positive identity for their people.
I am sure you would still be giving them the label democracies as they adopt the authoritarian methods that you see other goverments you label dictatorships including Russia (which is in theory also a democracy). In substance if you are trying to get democracies to adopt the authoritarian methods of what you call dictatorships, then you are advocating for them to continue transforming into authoritarian states that only wear the skin suit of democratic free societies.
The end of said transformation, even if the kind of thing that comes of that wins, it would be a victory of something totalitarian, ugly and a loss for those under its rule. But I don't think it can win, the way China has been investing and coordinating with so many other countries, can't really be shut down. I don't see why people should prefer a world seperated in big power blocks fighting each other, over more reasonable compromise.
I prefer the time when the Russians sell natural gas to europeans, the trouble with Ukraine didn't started, and we had mutual beneficial relationship and liked each other more. European manufacturing benefited from that and the whole Ukraine issue has been a destructive mess. Blindly hating the Chinese and Russians is unwise and lead the world to unnecessary conflict.
Trying to have mutual beneficial relationship with the Chinese too, is the best choice for non American powers as well. Especially if you want to be a real democracy, keeping down those who see permanent war and national security crisis against foreign powers to promote authoritarianism abroad is important. And there is a relationship between being a democracy and restraining excessive bellicose warmongers, and not adopting their anti-freedom agenda. Ironically, some of what I argue does have some crossover with mid 2000s liberalism, and really I am not against that. I have a problem with the liberal tribe for how extreme they are but I find that if you try to take the opposite position to any group on all issues and purity spiral in opposite direction, you get an idiotic extremist wildly unreasonable viewpoint. Plus, liberal tribe and liberalism has also its association with neocons.
I hope people who claim to value freedom here try to genuinely understand the reality that the neocon threat to your freedoms, supposedly to fight foreign threats (maybe Iran will be added to the mix) is greater than the influence those foreign countries have on you. And bills giving power to the goverment to ban as they please will be weaponized against domestic enemies of an establishment captured by ideological extremists.
I still wouldn't oppose punishing western companies for say censoring western media or forums, in relation to the preference of China. The same idea I mentioned above where it isn't sensible to be purity spiraling in opposite direction. There isn't any surgical wise policy here however but a slippery slope towards further tyranny under the idea of permanent war, and permanent national security threat. Of treating legitimate opponents of already tyrannical excesses like Tucker Carlson, as suspected traitors. Tucker Carlson isn't by accident perhaps the most popular/higher reach (especially when one considers suppression) journalist. He does promote some kooky stuff but has his reach by also often talking truth to power and saying things that are unsaid by others but are necessary to be said. A regime where coordinating deep state creatures shut down dissent and where more overltly bills banning it is done, is a totalitarian regime and certainly one ruled by an oligarchy for the oligarchy. Not one by the demos, for the demos.
Stopping elections is common in longstanding democracies during existential wars. For example, Britain didn’t have an election for 10 years between 1935 and 1945.
They don’t have schedules though. There was nothing to suspend, they just didn’t call an election.
If America decided to skip an election it could lead to states not recognizing the president.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link