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 was "figured out" by every republican form of government and subsequently refuted every single time by circumstance. As in the case of the Roman Republic which died precisely out of a need to split power which necessarily coalesced interest onto two rival factions with no choice but escalation, ultimately leading to a winner take all struggle and a return to monarchy that neither side wanted.
It turns out however fancy your rituals are, the incentives of consolidation are simply stronger.
Republics try to pretend that they can bound power in ritual. But a keen observer of their inner workings will notice that this is a sham. In the state of exception, they act as arbitrarily and beyond the spirit of their own rules as the most temperamental of personal tyrants.
I'd like to remind everyone we personally witnessed this a few years ago.
I'm tempted to point to the obvious that this place doesn't capture the sum total of my political action.
But if you understand how power works you know that making this demand often and publicly is the only way to get a good ruler if you are not an elite yourself.
The mistreated masses cannot solve this problem. They need a counter elite to form and their best bet is therefore to loudly advertise that they will pledge undying loyalty to their would be saviour. I believe this is called "populism".
But I understand your objection is that I'm not engaging in the liberal game of making sophisticated chains for the State.
All I can really tell you is that it is a fool's errand because the nature of power escapes all such chains, that the separation of powers is a myth that has never been instantiated, that politics revolves around group coalitions, not rituals, that every single political regime ever is a totalitarianism in waiting and that you'd understand this if you had considered politics as it is instead of how it ought to be.
Freedom is not to be found in establishing lasting rules to constrain power, it is found in the cracks that exist when it has no need to consolidate itself at one's expense.
A secure ruler can be far less tyrannical than a feckless one. Consider, for instance, how the gridlock of the US parliamentary system has reemerged as vast executive power and legislation from the bench, the total opposite of the intention. Meanwhile laissez faire is a maxim coined under absolutism.
I don't mean to imply that I hate republics. They are perfectly serviceable. But their political formula is fiction, in no less true a sense as divine right is. Acting as if setting up rules will change political reality is a kind of magical thinking. As above, so below. But that's not how it works. It's the incentives and the people that matter ultimately, not the written rules.
This is simply not true and the only way you can even have this opinion is because you have never set foot in true lawlessness.
I beg you to actually visit a country that is experiencing it, as I have, and you will see what manner of horrors humanity can produce when it is left to mob rule. I hear Libya is nice at this time of year.
Not that the desirability of government is a matter of any import, since it's restoration is inevitable. Feudal rulers start out as successful bandits after all. But chaos can last for a while, and I happen to value my life and property, so the maintenance of public order is a concern.
More options
Context Copy link