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 -
The point isn't really wealth, though, it is relationships of power. To be bourgeoisie is to be engaged in relationships of exploitation, the labor of the proles supports your lifestyle. The PMC distinction is valuable not because of the money/wealth, but because of the way that the PMC obscures the relations of power it has with the proles through a variety of legal/technical innovations. A PMC liberal might claim that they personally do not exploit anyone, while their lifestyle and vocation creates and perpetuates structures that engage in that same exploitation.* Think of Uber. The 1880 Bourgeois capitalist who wanted his driver to take him home from a party had a personal relationship with his driver. If he forced his driver to work late, didn't let his driver take off on Sunday to go to church and spend time with his family, didn't pay him enough, that was all personal: it was he the capitalist doing to it to him the driver. The Uber user today, the capitalist PMC, does not personally exploit any individual Uber driver. In fact, Uber encourages the PMC to tell himself lies, that his Uber driver is an artist and this is his day job, that his Uber driver likes the flexible hours that let him do other things, etc.
A personal sideways example: an engineering firm I work with puts in their email signatures that their company is a "carbon neutral workplace." This despite the fact that they are sending me plans to cut down a forest and fill in a wetland, plans that will be carried out with diesel bulldozers and excavators. Their "firm" is carbon neutral measured as a firm; their work is a bit less carbon neutral. That to me is the essence of the liberal PMC: they don't personally exploit anyone, they're insulated from it.
The saying goes, "privatize the gains, socialize the losses." What you describe sounds like "privatize[?] the harm [or agency?], socialize the guilt."
Think of it more like outsourcing your ethical compromises. Like a primitive superstitious ethical system, where direct contact with the impure makes you impure, but contracting someone else to handle the impure doesn't make you impure no matter how often you do it. As long as you never personally oppress anyone, other people doing it on your behalf doesn't bother you, you can tweet lecture everyone about ACAB while living in a doormanned building and taking private cars everywhere.
Modern legal and ethical systems recognize hiring someone to commit murder as equivalent to pulling the trigger yourself. Logically, it is ethically no different for any other ethical violation.
But then I don't tend to have the disgust reactions that many do about work. I've handled sewage all day, both literal septic tanks and reading case files for human sewage in pedophile confinement cases, and then gone out for a big meal. Purity isn't a reflex I have strongly, call it the 'tism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link