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 -
My first impressions is that it does not seem that the specific means matter at all in the reasoning here. Suppose you had some other mechanisms, any other mechanisms, let's call them X and Y. Suppose they were actually really good at performing these functions, so that we're able to say:
Then presumably, the important bits of the conclusion hold, and you would still be in favor of X and Y on the grounds of the conclusion. Thus, I sort of don't think that there's anything really about immigration/tariffs, specifically, that matters.
So what do I think is really going on here?
My read is that this is just standard leftist wealth envy/hatred. You're upset that people exist who are not satisfying "from each according to his abilities". Thus, you have to find a way, any way, to force them to "contribute" to "society" according to their abilities. There are humans out there who are not doing the specific thing you want them to do, so you will simply tweak society to engineer conditions that force them to do your will.
If this doesn't work, or X and Y fail to complete your goals, perhaps some still manage to mooch and others just feel some additional hardship, then we must go further. Perhaps we'll need to turn up the screws and wreck the economy further. Perhaps we'll need to conscript folks to work on farms/factories. Maybe just confiscate any wealth that might be sufficient to allow someone to buy leisure (or their family to buy it for them). The details of whether they're state-owned or not or what specific means are to be used are mostly irrelevant. It's the same impulse with the same lack of a limiting principle, and very likely very similar sort of just destroying the economy, and making everything worse for everyone, just to get at some perceived freeloaders.
I think the most common response is, "I don't care if some wealthy people are lazy." Yes, this includes people who have part of their "wealth" in family connections, no different from the hatred for "generational wealth". Instead, if they or their family generated wealth (which, by the usual means of market economies created value for others), it is sort of irrelevant if they use it to buy leisure for themselves or those close to them. They created the value and the wealth; they are free to use it as they please.
I would like to note that I think there are plenty of other grounds on which to dislike significant immigration. There are probably even other grounds on which to like tariffs (even if I generally don't find them persuasive). All I'm saying is that this is my read of this particular line of reasoning.
I'm not wealthy wealthy, but I am significantly wealthier than the median American. I could drop to zero net income and live off my current wealth for years without having to work a day. And I feel no moral guilt about this whatsoever. So no, I have no envy/hatred of wealth.
I'm upset that our vital and necessary work is being done by immigrants and illegals instead of native-born American citizens.
If we get back to the point where the work of maintaining American society is again being done by Americans, and there's still enough surplus to go around to enable some people to live as NEETs, then fine by me. Bully for them. Being a NEET is great! I've done my share of NEETing in the past. I empathize fully with why people want to do that and I have no criticisms of them from a moral perspective.
There is no politics unless someone is being forced to conform to something. There is no civilization unless someone is being forced to conform to something.
Obviously some civilizations are much more totalitarian than others. But even the most libertarian among us will still usually support some minimal state order for the purposes of punishing violent crime, enforcing property rights, etc.
Incorrect, see above.
Does anyone else find this morally despicable? "It's ok for me to be able to never have to work another day, but wouldn't it wonderful if we make the country so much poorer that everyone else has to spend the rest of their lives doing manual labor?"
No, it's "I worked hard and produced enough money/value that I have the option of no longer working if I wanted it. Wouldn't it be good if the chronically idle were forced to do the same, given that their idleness is making them bloated and unhappy?"
The rich tend to be much more clear-eyed about the downsides of having enough money that they no longer need anything, in the same way celebrities are clear-eyed about mass fame not actually feeling that good.
Personally my feelings are mixed. I want a good long holiday to really get into all the hobbies that I never had time for; at the same time, whenever I'm left without external whips for too long I sink into a morass and get less done. I suspect the optimal amount of non-chosen labour in someone's life is greater than 0 but less than 8 hours a day. In an ideal world I would be interested to see a 4-hour-day work program.
EDIT:
I might have been projecting in my analysis of @Primaprimaprima's motives. Although I can see an argument that maintaining America on the manual labour of Chinese/Guatemalans is not morally better than maintaining it on Americans.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm sure every Party member in good standing could use a similar defense. They don't hate luxuries; they have them! (They certainly earned them, unlike those other freeloaders...) It's just when those other people have their luxuries and aren't contributing "according to their abilities" that there's a problem.
Whence tarrifs? (The proposed point of the OP.) They have nothing to do with immigrants or illegals. Like I alluded to, there are plenty of other (I think potentially good) reasons to go after immigration/illegals. Those motivations are different. I maintain that the ones you presented are just standard leftist wealth envy/hatred. (...at least, any wealth that you perceive wasn't as 'deserved' as your own.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The funny thing is there IS a way to force (most) people to "contribute", one agreed upon between such disparate figures as Rudyard Kipling and Vladimir Lenin. Lenin got his version from the Bible, good atheist that he was: "He who does not work shall not eat"; this was incorporated into the Soviet Constitution. Kipling's version was one of the Copybook Headings, "If you don't work you die." But this is one thing that less-than-tankie leftists (including social democrats of all sorts) will absolutely not agree with.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link