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 think this glosses over a lot of what the limits of democratic control should be. This itself is a political choice - hairdressing is licensed in some jurisdictions, but not others. What sorts of trades a bank can make with its own book is a political question, and our current consensus developed post GFC which led to the Basel frameworks.
The populist theory appears to be that any change which is salient is grounds for the choice to be declared political and the subject of debate. This is self-fulfilling IMO, because nearly any issue can be made politically divise simply by inciting our leaders to act divisive about it. See: vaccines, plastic bags at grocers, transgender healthcare.
Our discourse is increasingly driven by crackpots and populists, and that's how you end up with the Phillipine Courts causing blindness in children.
The populist framing is going to do severe long term damage to our politics, our health, and our planet.
Retvrn to elite worship.
We're ..... already here.
No, it isn't elites in the sense of Aristocrats or Philosopher-Kings the way a lot of reactionaries would like. It's elites of culture - Hollywood, sports figures, quasi political public figures (talking heads), and pretty much anyone who can find a way to capture 1mm+ eyeballs one way or another.
Now, you might respond "No,no,no by elite I mean people with, you know, demonstrated skill and capability!" Well, it's turtles all the way down. One man's skill is another man's luck, just look at the recent thread on the stock market. Also, if you think the most meritocratic are the ones who naturally progress to the top of large organizations, I've got a Google and United States Army certified bridge to sell you.
The entire idea of "replace bad elites with good elites" fails because having any elites in the American system allows for co-opting of the system. Bernie Bro's will talk about the moneyed elite buying elections, MAGA types will talk about the Deep State bureaucracy elites stealing elections. They're both wrong in a factual sense (which is, you know, the most important one) but they're both leaning on an elite-vs-people ontology as the primary engine for deteriorating social and economic conditions. This is because it's such a simple and compelling narrative and has worked hundreds of times all of the world. "THEY are fucking you over!" Is politicking in a nutshell. There's a reason we call it Red Tribe vs Blue Tribe on this website.
Elites should be less socially relevant to people. I've written about this before but a huge part of Trumps appeal is that a lot of his base viscerally, deeply sees Trump as one of their own. They feel like they can reach out and touch him. Flashback to early in the 2016 election cycle and we were, then, headed towards Hillary Clinton vs Jeb Bush. That's an election that feels awful because neither candidate is
not a lizard person grown in the Epstein cyborg bunkerparticularly personable. But I wonder if it would've been one of the more substantive elections in recent history. "Hey, both of us have the personality of a damp phonebook ... I guess we to have to talk about the issues!" That turns into elites with high political / technical salience getting their shot at leadership, instead of those with high social salience. President Mitch McConnell? Never in today's world ... but I have a suspicion the Founding Fathers would've looked at him and said, "That's your fucking guy!""Elite worship" as you term it is a very fancy version of parasocial relationships with strangers. I can't think of an argument for why a deeply committed parasocial relationship is ever a good thing. Instead, strengthen actual in person social relationships. But at the level beyond your own family (which, for any healthy adult, will always be their number one social relationship). But don't extend it to strangers, which just turns into you creating conceptions of reality that already fit your pre-defined values system. I'd say, draw the demarcation point at people you see semi-regularly and know the names of. People who might greet you on the street. Put politicians right after those folks in terms of relative social importance. I want my relative prioritization of my relationship with Steve, the retired Army Colonel at my regular bar, to be far more important that my perceived relationship with Biden/Trump/Kevin Sorbo.
More options
Context Copy link
I call first dibs on defining "elite".
More options
Context Copy link
Reverse this and I think the populist position becomes a lot more compelling. In other words, deciding what to exclude from politics is a political choice. Taking an element of life and saying 'I don't care what any of you think, we're doing it this way and we always will' is pretty much the most direct exercise of power one can imagine.
More options
Context Copy link
Huh? You think transgender health is divisive only because politicians acted divisive about it? I think that's a pretty bad example. If anything politicians are playing catchup with the popular sentiment, and the whole thing only ever became a topic in public debate, because the elites were working so relentlessly on imposing it on the public.
Or are saying the opposite, these issues wouldn't be divisive if people wouldn't feel divided about them, and incite politicians to act accordingly? Isn't that just a round about way of saying "the issue is, in fact, politically divisive"?
Who's elites, yours or mine?
If you think having a unified legitimate elite is such a great idea, why don't you reject yours and endorse mine as legitimate?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link