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 -
Free markets are pretty neat! They solve a whole host of problems quite elegantly. I'm pretty sure they don't solve all problems, though, and it seems to me that for some problems, they only offer a solution if the whole system is free-market end-to-end. It is not obvious to me that each incremental freeing of a market has a linearly-positive effect. I think it is obvious that a market can get "more free" in specific ways that benefit some and not others, such that the system ends up worse-off on average when that "freedom" does not actually generalize across the whole system.
More generally, there's a thing I've observed where people argue that people should apply policy X in one specific area, where it will be to their short-term advantage, while absolutely stonewalling such policies everywhere else, where the people on the other side would derive advantage from them. Call it "policy arbitrage". I prefer specific policies because I think they will have good effects, not because they have a specific label on them. If there's a label I like, but it seems both that the policy it's applied to will have bad effects on net, and also that it won't do much to actually advance other policies that seem better, even ones with the same label, I'm not going to support it.
The market, as a whole is not actually free. It's somewhat plausible to me that an actual free market would be better than what we have, but this change would not actually make the market as a whole free, does not seem likely to even measurably help in making the whole market free, and does seem likely to cause immediate, highly significant harms. If you tell me that I should support such policies because "free markets", I'm going to tell you to come back when you've actually got the market free elsewhere. What I'm not going to do is embrace immediate, obvious harms in the hope that nebulous, uncertain benefits materialize, someday, at some unspecified date in the future.
TL;DR - Free markets != Free(er) markets, so arguments for the one don't generalize to the other.
More options
Context Copy link