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 -
You just work through examples of how difficult finding the exchange value of labor and objects is, and what the consequences of getting it wrong are (too low: shortages due to high demand and not enough incentive to produce more, too high: fewer people can afford and waste from overproduction).
The main problem of communism is that it assumes finding that value is trivial or unimportant and can just be done by someone guessing. As inefficient capitalism can seem, it allowing prices to adjust according to supply and demand automatically resolves that issue, and simply by that, it outperforms everything else significantly. And so you explain to that person that any time there is a proposition to try and "fix" prices in capitalism, they need to ask themselves: 1. Am I going to fuck with prices that are actually accurately set by an unimpeded, normal market? (if yes, don't do it) 2. If the prices were not being set by a unimpeded market, is my solution bringing it closer to that market, or am I just trying to adjust prices it by vibes? (if just vibes, don't do it!)
Ah, yes, I find handing someone a printout of The Use of Knowledge in Society is a surefire way to win them over.
More options
Context Copy link
By the second paragraph you've already lost almost everyone who doesn't have at least like a 110 IQ or so.
The fact that most people can't consider this logical chain is one of the most salient arguments against the masses being in charge of society.
If most people cannot even comprehend the ECP, how is democracy anywhere near a reasonable regime?
Because they can comprehend things like "I shouldn't be lynched", and voting for "I shouldn't be lynched" is inextricably tied to voting for how the government acts on the market.
More options
Context Copy link
And yet the masses in aggregate are often smarter than any expert.
If you've read Surowiecki and his arguments to that effect, you must know these successes are not those of the masses properly understood but of large collections of individuals.
As soon as the masses become conscious of themselves as masses people start copying or interpreting each other's judgements and encounter the failure modes of crowds that he lists: conformism, division, centralization, etc.
Which is all to say that the wisdom of crowds argument for democracy is actually an argument against democracy and for republics. Republics specifically without political parties and mass suffrage.
I'm amenable to those. But they don't tend to stay this way very long.
What are "the masses" properly understood if not a large collection of individuals?
Groups are more than the sum of their parts.
A political party is more than the sum of it's adherents.
Practically, crowds do not answer the same way as if you interview every member individually. The awareness of one's position within a larger group alters one's responses significantly.
Surowieck's book title is a nod to a much earlier book by Mackay on "the madness of crowds" that lists a number of examples of this effect.
Liberals are often blind to the effects of collectivism because they are not used to consider people as groups, since theirs is an individualistic ideology, but there is a very stark difference between "the masses" or "the nation" or even "the race" and the sum of people involved. One so potent it is magical and the object of many cults.
People will literally castrate themselves or commit mass suicide if they are among peers who all agree it is the correct thing to do.
There is another common line of argument against democracy that uses this to argue the crowd is the natural bride of the demagogue and tyrant. But I think we are veering off topic since our discussion is about mere ability to make correct political decisions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link