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 -
Why do countries have presidents? Why do companies have CEOs? Why do armies have generals? Why do ships have captains?
One-man leadership is possibly the most tried-and-tested social structure in history, we use it everywhere. That isn't to say that it's autocratic leadership, there can be laws and votes of no confidence and so on. But we have it for a reason. There needs to be someone with final say, a clear chain of command so that people know who is to be obeyed. Someone needs to be in charge to punish incompetence and reward success.
What happens if people from different departments want different things? 'We need to bail out Ukraine, send more air defences, it's vital for freedom and liberty in the world' says the State Department. But the Pentagon says 'no, the primary danger is in Asia, we need to focus on China - let Europe pick up the slack'. Maybe the CIA and intelligence agencies want resources heading to Israel, as a third option. This is just a hypothetical.
There needs to be someone with the formal authority to set priorities and make decisions even if he has to tread on other people's toes. There needs to be a legitimate ruler, not a gaggle of eunuchs constantly plotting and horse-trading to get parts of their agenda through. Government by gaggle of eunuchs leaves little room for long-term planning or coherent strategy. Without proper leadership, officials get too comfortable and entrenched pursuing their own agendas. That's exactly what's been happening in America for years and years now, probably only a world-historical genius can fix it.
Would you invest in a company without a leader, where all the department heads just come together and do their own thing? Probably not because you know that just about every company has a CEO, a founder, a 'paramount leader' one way or another. You wouldn't take that risk.
More options
Context Copy link