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 can assure you, I'm not trying to bait anyone. I'm fully aware statements like that aren't well received here, but I came to to The Motte because folks here are genuinely insightful and responsive to what I have to say. I came here to escape Reddit, essentially. I was tired of the echo-chambers. Sometimes out of shear desperation to be heard, I post over there thinking someone would understand where I'm coming from, but it never seems to be fruitful. At least here, people are thoughtful and respectful, even if we disagree. I don't have much to lose, at this point.
I think that the people you see out there engaged in political firefights represent a small fraction of political viewpoints. The loudest people in the room are the ones waging the culture war. I think that most people are more concerned about getting up, going to work, putting food on their/their family's table, their finances and their social life than they are with waging the culture war. The people out there making the most noise, I believe, are drowning out the voices of those who would take a more gentle and pragmatic approach to politics. You should know that I'm an introvert. I tend to keep my thoughts to myself and only speak when I feel confident I can put together a cohesive statement of opinion. I also tend to regress if a conversation gets too heated. So, my personal biases are definitely influencing how I feel about this.
These sort of "the majority are reasonable" arguments understandably pop up quite often, and I have many problems with them, but here I'll just say this portrayal is far too flattering of them. The majority won't even stay friends with someone who the loudest have called out as a wrongthinker, and that's a necessary condition for any kind of gentle approach to politics.
And that's the key aspect that I feel needs to change. I think the more we shut people out who are "wrongthinkers", the more we group each other into group-think silos, the less compromise and progress we make as a society.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
1 - Double check your formatting. You accidentally looped your response to a quote into the quote itself.
This is fair and probably correct. It raises the question, however, about what "pragmatic" means. I fear that a lot of "pragmatic" politics involves people coming together to workout their policy issues and compromising for a balance approach to ... doing something.
As a constitutional conservative, the number one thing I don't want the Government to do is anything. Sure sure, normal caveats like providing for Defense and common infrastructure goods. But the point remains, a lot of the culture war has to do with the fact that people feel out of control of their own lives because of a slow, Long March of the institutions dating back to about the Great Depression with antecedents going as far back as the Civil War.
"Pragmatic Politics" sounds really intuitive and good, but it assumes that political activity (really, State activity) is something that should, ought to, and will happen at scale. I'd contend that everyone in one issue or another is against this. Some people don't want the Gov't to interfere with the internet, for others its food and diet, guns, abortion etc. So you can see how, all of a sudden, "pragmatic politics" slams into closely held discrete-issue beliefs. Then, nothing gets done because you're trying to hold a meeting in the middle of a minefield.
Well, see, there's something we can find agreement on. I would prefer a more limited government as well, maybe not as far as suggesting we abolish the FDA for example, but I would definitely agree with you that State and federal governments have become too big, especially as it pertains to interstate commerce. I would love to see Wickford v. Filburn get overturned. I tend to be pro-2A as well, with caveats for universal background checks, training, and safe storage. I'm happy that both Harris and Walz openly talk about how their firearms owners.
I see what you're saying about "pragmatic politics". Like, it could easily go down the slippery slope of "my issue is the only one that matters" and then nothing gets done. I agree with the notion that politics should involve compromise. But if no one is willing to compromise, what then? And that's where I'm getting hung up. In everything that I've learned in life, you don't get your needs met or your voice heard by throwing out snarky one-liners or calling someone Hitler or labeling a university president as the Devil or what have you. It just doesn't make sense to me.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link