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? If we're restricting ourselves to what seems to be a rather minarchist AnCap Utopia, why is it that only doctors would be licensed to sell it?
Once again, my own views, and not representative of current reality:
Anyone can get a license to prescribe anything. They go to a government body that makes them pay a recurring sum that is a fair estimate of expected negative externalities, or what would have come out of the public purse. For highly addictive drugs, this would certainly be an enormous sum. It might even be legally required to buy insurance on the free market. Think of this as a more generalized form of malpractice insurance as paid by doctors, if you don't show proof of funds then too bad for you.
It might be framed as a bond, due to be returned with interest after X years, but any violations would be deducted from it. If they sold to someone with an Adult Card, then they'd be cleared of much of the liability.
Good luck on getting people to come to a true consensus on what is "good for you". A stable equilibrium is allowing people to choose for themselves, as long as they don't abuse the privilege by hurting others.
As far as I'm concerned, the State should not be in the business of being a nanny, and if it insists, then people should be allowed to opt out or form enclaves of like-minded people.
I re-iterate that I'm not a monomaniacal zealot. This counts as a concession, a mild step back from Absolute Freedom (or outright anarchy). I think your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
I am willing to trade away a non-zero amount of freedom for other terminal values I have. I just value freedom more than most.
I disagree. We currently do something maybe sorta kinda like what I propose, but in a half-baked manner without underlying guiding thought more than the whims of the Current Year.
That is your opinion. I express my love and sense of duty towards my "fellow man" by hoping I can treat them like intelligent adults who can decide for themselves, and ask the same in turn.
More options
Context Copy link