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 -
It's a social dynamic that doesn't exist today, and paternalism was a big part of that dynamic. The paternalistic aspect was very real but isn't to be recognized in this day in age. It certainly isn't an oxymoron.
Luckily someone in my family already compiled all the archival research going back to the 1730s: enlisted in the Revolution, 300 acres, 4 horses, 0 Negroes according to archival documents. It's wild reading wills and such. The first ancestor to arrive to America left his son a Bible, a stove, and a pipe in his will.
The longer fleshed out statement I had originally was something like "it would be kind to not punish them for anything that isn't an actual crime, and pay them wages for the work they do, not forcibly separate their families, and allow them some avenue of exit from the situation if they think its not working out for them." But that was basically the equivalent of freeing them, so I shortened it. But quite a few of those things have no place for someone being "paternalistic". When paternalistic and economic concerns were at odds the economic concerns won out. I say that not as judgement, but as a simple statement of facts. Just like today a company that is unconcerned with economic realities will eventually go broke.
I also believe paternalism does exist today. It is the government as parent to everyone. The government is not as limited by economic concerns, which honestly makes it more frightening. In both cases of paternalism I don't think of them as "kind". The proponents of paternalism probably wouldn't describe it as "kind" either. At best they might say it is a "kindness". Paternalism is a belief that a strong hand is needed for guiding the less able-d and less intelligent to the right paths in life. That the strong hand will dish out measured punishments that are less harsh than what the world itself might dish out (thus the sort of "kindness").
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link