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 -
See that’s what I’m talking about impossibly high standards, it’s not one or zero, you can be more or less liberal. And OP thinks liberalism failed because... people voted for less centrist candidates?
Freedom of speech is a liberal policy. You can't just point to a relative lack of freedom of speech to do the 'liberalism fails yet again!' schtick.
This is also not liberalism.
But that's the standard you brought up. If it's not none or zero, than you can be a liberal while censoring people, and you can't automatically attribute censorship to the enemies of liberalism.
It's extremely reductive, but it's basically Rousseau? Has he been cast out of the Liberal canon?
My understanding is that he was never in Liberal canon. He had a huge distrust of private property, individual choice, and markets. All things that are actual cornerstones of Liberalism.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes I can. A partly liberal regime implementing an illiberal policy that fails is a failure of illiberalism. If a liberal policy failed, that would be a failure of liberalism.
Like many liberals, I think rousseau is incorrect. I don’t call myself liberal because I worship Rousseau’s word, but because it’s a useful category that encompasses a range of policy positions I support, freedom of speech, equality before the law, democracy, private property, individual rights and freedom. The historical roots and even the word itself I don’t find important. If the criticism is limited to rousseau’s thought, go ahead, he’s nothing to me. But if you want to criticize a standard liberal position, you'd have to confront freedom of speech, equality before the law etc, directly.
Liberals implementing an illiberal policy in the name of liberalism, is a failure of liberalism. Yours is the exact same logic behind "real communism has never been tried". It's cool that what you're actually arguing is a classless society, but if your system keeps ending up as an authoritarian oligarchy or dictatorship, that's on you. Same with liberalism - it would be one thing if liberals fought for freedom of speech and lost, then you could claim that the failure belongs to illiberals, but if it's liberals fighting against freedom of speech, it's on you.
Cool, but I can't see how you can call his ideas "not liberalism".
I like to focus on the ideas of collective identity, collective rights, the secular state, and neutral institutions. Pretty sure those are also at the core of the standard liberal position.
But liberalism has been tried and it's been terrific. I'll defend its record gladly, unlike them.
You're not judging things fairly, you're stacking the deck against liberalism. If a liberal policy fails anywhere, you reckon it's a failure of liberalism. However, if a somewhat liberal regime implements an illiberal policy and it fails, it's still a failure of liberalism. If it succeeds, failure of liberalism again.
"collective identity, collective rights" seem opposed to individual rights, which is core.
We were talking about whether or not things like censorship should be attributed to liberalism or illiberalism, in that regard you are doing the "true liberalism has never been tried". Just like communists claiming the USSR was not communist because by definition communism is a classless society so any dictatorial figure like Stalin or the party oligarchy being in power means it's not communism, you are claiming that liberals censoring people logically must the fault of illiberalism.
No, U. You could make an argument like "liberalism isn't living up to it's own standards, but it's doing so better than any of the alternatives", but you're basically saying that liberalism not living up to it's own standards is impossible, and any time it looks like it might be failing to do so, it's the fault of some evil illiberal.
Bear in mind, when I said "the secular state, and neutral institutions", I meant I'm against them and/or thing the idea is a pipe-dream.
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