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 -
No. Everything the government does is funded by my taxes dollars. That is the fungible part. So yes, some of my tax dollars (or future tax dollars) goes to fund Ukraine. There is not “sophistry” either way.
And yes, the objection “why should my taxpayer dollars go to support Ukraine” is a valid argument (just like any argument about government spending). It’s purpose is manifold:
It reminds congress people that money isn’t theirs; it is forcibly taken from citizens. They should be stewards. Is this really an expenditure they should be making? There is a principal agent here and reminding the agent “it isn’t your money” is good.
It asks the question of whether this is legitimate. Could the government give anyone they want $100b? Surely there are conceptual limits about what the federal government can do with their spending power. Well, it isn’t clear the exact wellspring of congressional power here.
It is a rhetorical device to other citizens to remind them their scarce resources are being spent in a particular way.
Maybe if more people paid federal taxes, the argument would have more bite.
There is a political theory aspect here as well. What is the ethical (apart from legal) justifying taking by force money from party A to give that money to noncitizens? While there is of course objections to taking from party a to give to party b when party b is a citizen, it would seem the objection is stronger in the context of a nation state (and if we reject the concept of nation state then why the hell are we doing anything in Ukraine). There needs to be a justification of why it is ethical to take from party A to give to non citizens beyond “we have the power” or “some of our citizens like it.”
More options
Context Copy link