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 -
People owe the societies they live in, actually. If you want to go live in the woods with wolves and bears for neighbors then more power too you, that’s the condition for opting out.
Giving someone a service they never asked for, then claiming they owe you for it, is a classic scam. And this isn't the 16th century. There is nowhere you can run that a government won't find you. They own everything.
Oh BS. You can move to a society which doesn’t have a government(Haiti) or remote parts of limited state capacity societies. Yes there’s a good chance that the locals in rural parts of the Congo will rob and then murder you, but ‘basic security’ is a service from the state.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If the world owes you nothing, you owe nothing to the world.
But society does owe its members things. Not infinite things, but some things.
Then actually say that, and not just be dismissive with 'if you want to go live in the woods with wolves and bears for neighbors' with all that implies.
As I put in the other reply, if society has gotten to the point where a sizable portion of people are going 'Fuck this, I'm out', then something about society has been broken fundamentally and needs to be addressed. You can't just brush it off and absolve society of any responsibility.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What a strange thing to believe. Do you believe parents have no duties to their children, and that children have no duties to their parents?
Quite the opposite. (Note that statement starts with 'If'.)
I've seen the argument that people should suffer for society far too much, with the condescending, sneering reply of 'Just go live in the wilderness, see how you like it' in response to people having issues with parts of current society to the point it's almost a cliché.
I'm a firm believer that door swings both ways - that society has an obligation to the people therein, and that people have an obligation to the society, but only when this operates in a fair, back and forth, equitable fashion. If society has gotten to the point where a sizable portion of people are going 'Fuck this, I'm out', then something about society has been broken fundamentally and needs to be addressed.
My argument is the statement of 'people owe the societies they live in', without any caveats, and the follow up of 'if you want to go live in the woods with wolves and bears for neighbors' with the implied threat therein, is just blind adherence, bordering on slavery.
Either it goes both ways, or it doesn't go at all.
Hence my reply of 'If the world owes you nothing, you owe nothing to the world'. Because if society owes you nothing, you owe nothing to society.
(Yes, there's the fair debate of how much society owes the individual, but let's not go into that right now...)
That makes a great deal of sense, and I would broadly agree. Thanks for clarifying.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why is living in the woods a valid way to opt out, but killing yourself isn't?
More options
Context Copy link
No. Commun
istsitarians tend to think this because it allows them to demand infinite sacrifice for zero benefit, but the social contract is continually and constantly renegotiated.In this case, society isn't holding up its end of the bargain- the "owes its members a future that's at least as good as it was before" part- and as a result, the individuals that make up society will under-deliver in TFR until it starts delivering.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link