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 -
I have, actually. Have you?
We still covet, steal, hate, murder, love, couple, build, form hierarchies, have children and raise them, form communities, societies, governments, trade, and so on and on, as we have since recorded history began, despite specific predictions and even explicit, forcefully-implemented plans backed by millions of man-years of human effort to alter these specific things. Technology has changed surface details. Sometimes it has, temporarily, changed how these basic drives express themselves. What hasn't happened is fundamental changes in how humans live. Whether it's the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Bible, or the Meditations, analysis of the human condition written thousands of years ago remain immediately relevant today, because nothing substantive has changed. Better weapons change how we fight wars, but they don't change the fact that we fight.
It bears emphasizing the degree to which this reality directly contradicts the explicit, detailed predictions of many of our society's most influential minds. We were not supposed to have crime, ignorance, poverty, war, addiction, or the other ills at this point. One whole branch claimed we wouldn't have families, and made considerable effort to eradicate them. All their schemes failed, because their structures, mercifully, collapsed.
Human society is fractal, and the seed is human nature. As society grows more complex, the fundamental patterns express themselves with increasing elaboration, but their nature remains constant. Our ability to alter the form of that pattern remains shockingly limited.
Yes, you do have to argue that. How did Stalin winning WII make the planet significantly more likely to be dominated by anti-human values? His ideology was incompatible with fundamental aspects of human nature, and so for all its ruthlessness and barbarity, it crumbled.
The planet is not, in fact, dominated by US values. The US just spent 20 years attempting to impose its values on a handful of middle-eastern shitholes, and completely failed. US values are visibly crumbling within the US itself. US values conflict with human nature less than Soviet values did, so they crumble slower, but they still crumble.
I do not believe that social change is random instead of self-reinforcing. I believe that social change is cyclical. There's a sort of low-energy state, and moving off that low-energy state, whether to the positive or the negative, requires exponentially-increasing energy. Once the energy is expended, society reverts back to the low-energy state in fairly short order. Societies tend toward being livable, not "benevolent". Social change is not self-reinforcing, but rather self-negating. The "massive" social changes we've seen lately have resulted in the people who've embraced the changes not having any kids. What do you think the long-term result of that is going to be?
The current society is comfortable, in the way a heroin addict with a steady supply is comfortable. I do not agree that it is "benevolent", and I am not particularly interested in preserving it, since it seems to me that it is both unsustainable, unhealthy and unjust. War and other forms of violence happen for a variety of reasons, not all of them evil; most of the plausible mechanisms where the current peace break down seem, at a minimum, necessary.
This is the core of our disagreement. You think that Stalin's successor was determined by a random roll of the dice. I think Stalin's successor was determined by the sum wills of his underlings, and the sum of those wills was decidedly against continuing the slaughter. People can be convinced, temporarily, to commit heinous atrocities for some greater good. When the greater good stubbornly refuses to materialize, they grow disillusioned and quit. North Korea is repressive by our standards, but not terribly repressive by historical standards. They aren't running extermination camps. They aren't waging aggressive wars. And so, with a great deal of outside support, they'll maintain for a little while longer, and then they too will revert to the mean.
And now all you have to do is maintain it. Did Pinker cite the decrease in murder post 1990s? Do you believe, looking at the world around you, that "victory" over violence is a realistic possibility? If so, I must respectfully disagree.
Those sacrifices were indeed brave and noble. It's just that their effect is temporary, not eternal. Evil re-emerges, and must again be fought, but conversely even when Evil is victorious, its victories do not last forever. The mongols swept across a fair portion of the world in a tide of destruction, but a thousand years later, their impact is imperceptible. The Aztecs cemented a monstrous regime based on pervasive slavery and ritualized mass-murder... and then they were no more, and again left no permanent stamp on humanity.
I haven't read the book, but this claim definately contradicts my own understanding. The south was in a bad position both economically and politically, which is why they attempted to force a favorable resolution, and why their attempt was doomed. If the outlook was favorable to them long-term, why not simply play the long game?
No, I claim that "social science" is technology for manipulating a society, in the same way that materials science is technology for manipulating materials. The better your social science, the better your ability to temporarily deform society away from the core tendencies of human nature. Energy cost of maintaining such deformations increases exponentially over time. I see little evidence that the ways tech advances alter society can be reliably predicted at all, beyond the observation that human nature itself prevails.
North Korea is a pretty weak dystopia. It's fairly poor and somewhat hungry, and generally drab, not particularly murderous. It's also not self-sustaining or capable of expanding beyond its borders. Its imposition required starting conditions that do not exist elsewhere. It is not a persuasive model for what can be imposed on the rest of the world, nor for how the long-term trajectory of humanity can be altered.
That's unfortunate, but it's a conclusion you're free to draw. Have a good one, sir.
More options
Context Copy link