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 -
Are you implying that the LARGEST MEDIA CONGLOMERATE ON THE PLANET had it's ability to exercise free speech threatened by this action?
Is there anything at all stopping them from using their dozens of channels to air 24/7 anti-Desantis ads if they chose?
Do you think that a Corporation that disagrees with legislative actions taken by a representative government are entitled to continue enjoying special privileges conferred by that government?
Should a liberal society allow corporations to receive special privileges from the government in the first place?
I dunno. I think there's a clear distinction between an action like "dissolving the Disney Corporation and seizing all the assets it has in the state before imprisoning its executives" and "dissolving the special district that is, by definition, a political subunit of the state itself but happens to be politically controlled by the Disney Corporation."
I would find it a bit absurd if Disney were able to prevent the state from exercising authority over it's special district should the legislature decide to act.
I'd love to live in the world where my government doesn't directly interfere with legal corporate activities and corporations didn't take active political stances on contentious legal issues.
The question of whether Disney is entitled to having a special district or whether such districts have a place is wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand because DeSantis's actions don't really address it. There are over 1800 such districts in Florida, some of them in favor of entities like NASCAR whose contribution to the public good, to the extent that one exists, is roughly on par with Disney's, and to my knowledge there's no movement from DeSantis or anyone else to do away with them. If DeSantis had made a principled argument that such public-private partnerships were antithetical to the spirit of liberal society and pushed legislation to do away with all of them, to the extent that it was feasible, then my opinion would be based more on practical concerns, i.e. whether the state was taking on an undue burden by assuming services that had previously been provided by private entities. But that isn't the case here; the action is wholly retaliatory. DeSantis himself certainly had no qualms about granting Disney special carve-outs in the past.
And if the state is going to allow such districts and partnerships and special privileges to exist, then no, those privileges shouldn't be preconditioned upon the holder of them to conform to the political whim of those in power. Should a bar owner lose his liquor license for putting a Trump sign in the window? Should government employees be required to work on their bosses' campaigns as part of their jobs? Should government contracts be awarded based on who said the nicest things about the elected officials responsible for granting them? The worst part of all of this is that it's antithetical to the standard line conservatives have been giving about corporate speech for the past ten years (and a line that I personally agree with). Should Citizens United be overturned? Should bakeries be compelled to bake cakes with messages they disagree with? Should Catholic employers be forced to pay for their employees' abortions? Conservatives have insisted for decades that companies are entitled to the same First Amendment rights as individuals are, and courts have largely agreed with them, but when they find the speech in question disagreeable all that goes out the window.
The standard line conservatives gave in the past about is what generally led to the current state. Modern conservatives are learning to stop embracing the philosophy of losers, because losing spoils every other thing you want.
So long as Disney opposes the right, I want all the force the right can bear brought down on them. That's the only way Disney will stop opposing the right. Being a principled loser is for suckers.
By how you describe it, free speech rights under a "modern conservative" regime would not exist, because freedom of expression would be conditional on supporting the government's agenda. If you oppose the government's agenda, you'll have the full force brought down on you until you stop opposing the government. Am I misunderstanding something?
"Free Speech" doesn't exist now, and hasn't for some time. One cannot lose what is already long gone, and perhaps never existed.
Even if that's true, it doesn't address how a "modern conservative" regime should deal with the issue. Instituting a policy of "agree with the government's agenda or face retribution" doesn't strike me as compatible with my (potentially inadequate) understanding of what conservatism stands for.
A "modern conservative" regime should attempt to maximize conservative values: high trust, low crime, broad-based economic prosperity, building for the future, stability and order, cultivation of virtue, legible consequences for wrongdoing, social cohesion, etc. To that end, it should allow speech as long as it doesn't disagree too much with conservative values. Speech that does disagree too much with conservative values should have social, economic, political and legal consequences enforced by the full weight of social institutions.
In other words, more or less the existing regime that you and other "reasonable" types have observably assented to, just with my people on top. None of this is mysterious or obscure. If you're curious as to how it would work, just look around you. The alternative, where we create some rigorous ruleset that covers all contingencies and bridges any level of values disconnect with a shared framework of impartial institutions and norms, didn't actually work, because that sort of framework isn't actually possible. Pretending otherwise is stupid and unproductive.
Speech has consequences. Speech is always going to have consequences. Yes, including via the Government. No, it doesn't matter what's written on the old parchments; ink and paper cannot and have not constrained human will. That's reality. The government constrains my speech in any number of ways, thumbs the scales, tilts the balance. It should do so to advance my values, not to quash them. I contend that the principles this entire argument is built on are a figment, a mirage, of no durable substance. There's no there there.
Negotiation within a shared ruleset as a viable method of conflict-resolution requires trust. There's insufficient grounds for cross-tribal trust any more, so that sort of negotiation isn't a viable method of conflict-resolution between tribes. Or are you really going to argue that the apportioning of "districts and partnerships and special privileges" and their analogues is rigorous and fair everywhere throughout the land, and that DeSantis' unreasonable attack on Disney is the unique, utterly unprecedented intervention?
I appreciate the candor. I think it's bad when governments punish speech that disagrees with government values. I thought it was bad when the communists do it, I would think it's bad when conservatives do it. Both are a manifestation of authoritarian government rule, and I find it dispiriting to see conservatives abandon this principle.
DeSantis was more than happy to give Disney a special carve-out for his social media bill. I think it's bad to for the law to give corporations special carve-outs. DeSantis changed his mind after Disney said things he didn't like. I think it's bad for government officials to retaliate against private entities for speech they engage in.
Does trying to crush all non-party-owned media count? Does blatant party lawfare against entire industries count? how about siccing the NSA on artists for making art the party doesn't like? Do you ever even hear anything negative about these things except from us? What precious principle would we lose if Republicans were the ones doing this instead?
At least it might get you noticing and complaining about it happening.
More options
Context Copy link
Why is it bad when governments punish speech that disagrees with government values? Why that formulation specifically? If we're going to punish speech, why does the mechanism matter more than the result?
And yet, it seems to me that government officials retaliating against private entities for speech they engage in is the norm, and arguably always has been the norm. "Hostile work environment", "Diversity and inclusion", contract preferences, selective prosecution, isolated demands for rigor, the list is endless. You can, by selective framing, build a coherent and consistent story where Blues are in the right and Reds are in the wrong. I contend that such a framework is isomorphic to "it's okay when and how blues do it."
My model of you is that you are willing to watch me and mine suffer functionally unlimited amounts of abuse, as long as that abuse doesn't tweak your idiosyncratic and highly legalistic value prescriptions. I know for a fact that you're willing to advocate lawless violence against people very like me when it suits you, and then blame my tribe for the easily-predicted consequences of that violence when they arrive. I know this because I've actually watched you do it. "Dispiriting" is a start for the feelings this engenders, yet what is the point of complaining about it? The world is as it is, not as we might wish it to be. What is there to do but to seek as clear an understanding as possible?
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
I don't set policy for any future conservative regimes, so unfortunately free speech rights would likely still exist in some form. If you meant to ask about my preferences, my preference is victory, through whatever means are necessary to achieve that; if that means silencing and destroying enemies, I support silencing and destroying enemies. If that means depriving them of speech, I support depriving them of speech.
I do not care one lick about principle when it comes to adversarial dealings. Principle is a luxury you can indulge when your rule is secure. In a far-off future where the Right had the Left's current social domination, I'd be fine with letting Disney talk shit without getting hit, because their speech would be irrelevant.
How do you talk about "the right" as a cognizable concept without principles? You're referring to a political ideology after all, so this is kind of confusing.
I don't think it's confusing at all. I believe the sides are clearly drawn and recognizable both to themselves and their enemies.
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