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 -
What then? Status quo.
And this was exactly, precisely, and explicitly what the founders intended. Government is incredibly powerful. It's like a mountain. If a mountain shifts in massive ways haphazardly, we call it an earthquake and it's bad. We want the mountain to mostly do nothing unless everyone super-duper agrees on it. Gridlock is the de-facto state of The State.
The problem arises when the State is involved in everything and, therefore, gridlock spreads to everything. This is the housing crisis, this is lack of energy independence, this is the wild "need" for college degrees for jobs that don't need them, this is "certifications" for hairdressers in some states.
Compromise is elusive because built into it is a positive sum assumption. In reality, a lot of political contentious are pretty much zero sum. Taxes are higher or lower. Economists can quibble about which taxes are "good" in the grander scheme of things but, in the immediate, somebody somewhere is paying more than they were before. They have less money with which they can decide to do things.
Again, "pragmatic politics" falls apart because it implies that the State should be doing things and that, if the state cannot do things, that is in and of itself a bad outcome (hence your rejoinder "But if not is willing to compromise, what then?"). To put a fine point on it: I don't want to need the State to function in order to live my life. Your assumption has built into it that we, as a society, absolutely need a well functioning State in order to live our lives. That's paternalism at best and authoritarianism at worst.
More options
Context Copy link