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 -
Any ideology can say they value liberty if they can limit it to only behaviors they consider virtuous or not transgressive as defined by their non-liberty-focused moral system. The whole point of liberty is that people with different moral beliefs and living preferences and purposes can coexist with minimal friction, so making use of social paradigms like property rights legal framework in order to maximize freedom. If you disagree, how are you defining liberty?
I mean I largely agree with you to a reasonable extent, particularly in regards to external populations. So long as it has sufficient lebensraum (and lolisraum, of course!), pedofascism would rather non-pedofascists just live somewhere else and do their own thing instead of bothering it.
But within its own society, liberty will be valued but balanced against other concerns (hence the phrase "valuing liberty" as opposed to "absolutely prioritizing liberty above all"). There is no pedofascist freedom to become a society of weak, effeminate, fat, etc. porn, drug, gambling, etc. addicts.
In that sense, the pedofascist conception of liberty includes a consideration of what genuinely expands masculine potential (and thus masculine freedom to pursue different avenues of opportunity) as opposed to what is simply "voluntary" (as man can be easily "voluntarily" enslaved by his baser, degenerate impulses). The Roman conception of Libertas may be useful here.
Pedofascist (and all fascist IMO) liberty is far less about the "freedom" to do heroin all day or walk around as a man dressed like a woman as in modern conceptions of it. As with Roman libertas, it is about being a master instead of a slave. And he who is not even master of himself is no master at all (and only the properly masculine are proper masters of anything).
There are other potential aspects to the libertarian angle on fascism. I have considered that quite possibly there might be multiple pedofuhrers each leading their own (ideally cooperative) versions of a pedofascist society. (After all at fascism's peak there were multiple fascist societies living in relative harmony.) If there is only one pedofuhrer, then he may appoint his multiple gauleiters to diversify the governance of their particular gaus, with citizens having the choice of which one they prefer to live in and "voting" with their feet.
Like most other NRX-esque (though pedofascism is actually not reactionary fundamentally, maybe somewhat neoreactionary if you emphasize the "neo") libertarians, pedofascism accepts the argument that freedom of choice/exit/association is ultimately the most important freedom, with the reasonable curtailment of certain other "freedoms" within a limited context often being acceptable to achieve particular kinds of polities catering to particular kinds of individuals (with those who don't agree having options to leave).
This statement doesn't make sense. Society's don't have freedom, people do, if you are scared of too many people freely choosing to become those things such that you believe it warrants coercion against those innocent behaviors, then you are not in that sense any different from ideologies that do not claim to support freedom.
Why is voluntary in scare quotes? Man can not be 'voluntarily enslaved' by anything because that would be an oxymoron. Those 'base, degenerate impulses' you refer to are a description of their own desires and are thus a part of themselves, so you are effectively claiming that people are able to enslave themselves which if anything is a weird way to describe the notion of self-ownership.
Isn't this just saying, "your doing behaviors I consider disgusting or repulsive, therefore you must not be in control of yourself", which is a convenient narrative for you, but is not convincing for me.
Isn't this just another way of saying, "if you don't like the laws in this polity, then leave", which is freedom in the unsatisfactory sense of the mugging victim having freedom to give his money to the mugger in exchange for being spared of his attack.
Societies enable this "freedom" for people, and, absent certain kinds of societies, they do not "exercise" it. There is no absolute true personal freedom in the ideal platonic sense, because one's behaviors are inevitably heavily influenced by the incentives present in one's environment (and one's ancestral environments via the behavioral impact of evolution, instincts that modern environments can trigger or not). The same person born in two different environments will act in completely different ways.
So why not ensure an environment that has a greater tendency to result in men being inventors, athletes, entrepreneurs, sex gods, artists, warriors, powerlifters, engineers, and scholars instead of gluttons, addicts, weaklings, poofters, premature ejaculators, and degenerates? (Unless you're advocating for absolute libertarianism for the youngest children too, heroin for 3 year olds, then you're going to have to make this choice anyway about which kind of adult their young childhood filters them towards being.) Is the second category really "freer" because they were born in a society that made it easier to fall to their temptations and they "voluntarily" did? Free to do what? Rot?
This is a very naive view of psychology, neurology, and human behavior that denies the definitions of, among other words, "temptation", "procrastination", and "addiction". Sure our desires are a part of ourselves, but so are parasites. It is well-known that humans don't always behave as they would genuinely prefer to in their most decisive thoughts if they had more willpower. Thus willpower is the essence of true liberty itself. So shouldn't a properly libertarian society have as its first aim maximizing the willpower, discipline, etc. of its citizens such that they can always make the choice they'll wish they had made tomorrow?
Really? That's the only issue people have with heroin addictions? That they're disgusting and repulsive? Not that they can take over people's lives to the point of precluding engaging in basically all productive and/or prosocial behaviors? That people are driven to buy heroin instead of buying their kids food, driven to do heroin instead of writing that book they had in mind, driven to steal to afford their addiction, driven do heroin instead of accomplishing anything?
Does retroactive choice not factor into your analysis of liberty here at all either? Most people who get addicted to heroin, even if they "chose" to try it at first in the moment, say that if they could they'd love to go back and choose the opposite. Does that choice not matter? Is true liberty merely the liberty to regret your decisions?
aryanchadyes.jpg
I mean it's unlikely you're going to wake up in a pedofascist enclave. You're probably going to have to voluntarily move knowing what it entails.
Who said we were confiscating property?
To the extent that people can alter the environment, the environment should be the result of decisions that individuals freely make, as long as they are not denying the freedom of others.
Yes the second category is truly freer because people are not prevented from being tempted into certain behaviors. If you are someone who has a strong desire not to become a certain way, then you should be able to resist the temptation to, if you can not then that just reveals your true preferences meaning you were not understanding yourself accurately when you thought it was something that you dislike.
Parasites are a part of ourselves that we generally desire to get rid of. Now some people could desire to get rid of certain temptations but doing that would conflict with other people's freedom to tempt them, and so would not be acceptable, and no that doesn't mean the tempters are reducing your freedom, it just means you lack willpower. "It is well-known that humans don't always behave as they would genuinely prefer to if they were different people" is approaching tautology.. This is the first time I am hearing that libertarianism is about maximizing willpower and discipline of the populace.
Yeah, those are the potential tradeoffs of a heroin addiction, some people choose to go through with it regardless.
They would love to go back and choose the opposite, but that's not a choice that they have.
But everyone is non-consensually born into a particular environment that they absolutely could not have chosen/affected (because they weren't born yet) and inevitably strongly influenced by it (affecting their later choices) before they develop much of a capacity for true reasoning/genuine choice at all. How do you account for that?
Again, there are no platonic "decisions that individuals freely make". Humans are born barely understanding what a decision is and influenced in their fundamental understandings by factors they have no control of at all for at least years (which isn't even getting into how they're additionally influenced by their genes and fundamental nature, which they obviously also can't control), and these factors readily carry over to what they'll "choose" for the rest of their life. (That is, if you feel my beliefs deny you the prospect of perfect liberty, let it be known that it is actually nature and the unalterable character of existence doing that.)
So let's say you have Bob. Bob's parents, who are also obese, instead of just giving him normal milk bottles, would sweeten them with heavy amounts of sugar and cream. They also let him drink Mountain Dew at mere months old. Bob becomes a chunky baby, kid, and later adult with a major sweet tooth and issues controlling his diet, which he feels major angst about, lowering his self-esteem, harming his health, etc.
Was it just in the nature of Bob to be obese then? And when he reaches for a donut after another dejected moment of looking at himself in the mirror there's nothing other than his comprehensive free choice driving it? And he's better off than he would be in a world where things were arranged to lead him down the path of being healthy and powerful? He's just lying to himself when he says he'd prefer to be thin?
For a supposed libertarian absolutist you're sure not sounding like one here. "You don't actually know your true preferences as well as my political ideology does!" People making "choices" they regret and didn't really want to on many higher levels than that of basic, animalistic temptation is one of the most documented phenomena in human psychology (and is also the whole reason the word "temptation" exists), but it don't real because of your political beliefs?
You can take a Darwinian "If you don't have the strength to resist your temptations then you don't deserve to be free of them." view, but don't pretend that's protecting people's freedom.
??? People have the right to a "freedom" to tempt others? So if I took chemical castration pills to erase my sexual desire, that would be violating the "freedom" of all of the people I'd otherwise be sexually attracted to? If Bob above undergoes hypnotherapy to change his dietary preferences, then he's violating the "freedom" of the Hostess brand to tempt him with Twinkies? That sure doesn't sound like even orthodox libertarianism to me.
Yes, this is exactly my point.
Simple analogy: If I want to go to Arizona in my car, but I don't have the gas to do so or the money to buy it, does that mean I actually don't want to go to Arizona and am just lying about my preferences? Obviously not. So if you have an ideology based on "Everyone should be free to go wherever they want in their car.", then, even if you're not willing to guarantee gas as a positive right, shouldn't you want to create a social environment where gas is in abundant supply for acquisition? If you had a society that seemed to instead tend to reduce the amount of available gas, both individually and collectively, wouldn't you question if maybe your policies were consistent with the world you wanted to create?
And after they're addicted? They're still just choosing, just like you might choose to learn Japanese or the piano? Neurology is fake?
Right. That's why ideally they would be enabled to make better choices the first time.
I can not account for it, nor do I need to in order for my ideology to make sense. I guess you could use something along those lines as an argument for antinatalism but that is a different story.
If I offer Bob donuts thereby tempting him to indulge in his gluttonous habits, I am not coercing Bob in any way, because it is ultimately him and no one else that makes the decision to take a donut. As to the notion that Bob would be better off if he had not been an excessive eater from an early age, yeah Bob is not wrong to think that and he is not necessarily lying to himself, but it is his parents fault for raising him with bad habits. And yet his parents did not necessarily do anything coercive to cause this outcome, so there is no warrant to prevent parents from feeding their children in unhealthy ways. Apart from such measures being uncalled for by liberal morality, it sets a dangerous precedent to allow authorities to control the way people raise their kids, even if there is widespread agreement among other parents that they are doing it wrong.
You can never know if you are going to end up regretting a particular choice, and even if you could, if you go ahead and make the choice anyway it shows that at least at that moment you believed that the benefits outweighed the costs. I don't think I agree that living in an environment where you can not avoid being faced with certain unwanted temptations that you are unable to resist means that you are less free. But I think it is clear that the alternative would be a violation of freedom, preventing people from displaying certain images, messages, or products on their property, and thus also preventing those who would like to have those things made visible to them from having this desire fulfilled.
That is not what I meant, the freedom to tempt is emergent from and bound by the law of property rights. If you alter yourself in a way that makes you no longer under the influence of those temptations, you are not denying the freedom of people to tempt in general, which is what I meant, not that they have a right to get you to notice and submit to those temptations.
Yeah, its not like they unconsciously find themselves consuming heroin, or that somebody is coercing them to consume heroin.
If by enabled you mean something like warned of the dangers of trying heroin, then I agree with that, and I don't think I would necessarily have a problem with it being required, within reason, to make sure that heroin buyers are aware of the potential harmful side effects of heroin use before receiving it.
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
More options
Context Copy link