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 -
Oh I absolutely agree it's not their fault, but it absolutely is their problem (by their I mean poor red tribers here). No different to how dogs abused by their owner often go feral.
However, just like the dog, if they are to be returned to polite society treatment (ideally persuasion through words and treats, otherwise the rod) is necessary.
Heads up bro, you've drifted from arrogant brahmin into telenovella villain.
The usage of the dog metaphor was an analogy, I wasn't calling poor red tribers dogs themselves. You're doing literally the exact same thing as progressives do when they say you are objectifying women when you point out the lock and key analogy.
No, what I was doing was pointing out that you don't sound like a rich person, you sound like a cartoon parody of a rich person. I assumed that wasn't your intention.
Oh, I'm not particularly rich (nor have I even claimed to be, family wealth < 5M USD), I just have a high paying job and the skills to easily get another high paying job etc. Technically I don't need to work a day in my life if I moved back home (everything much much cheaper) but that life is the life of an insect, it really isn't worth living.
Besides lots and lots of Indian Brahmins are really poor (as in can't afford to eat 3 times a day poor). Caste and Wealth are not the same thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
the problem isn't that you're calling Red Tribers dogs, though that is pretty much what you're doing, and it's not exactly awesome.
The problem is that you are discussing large numbers of other human beings as though they are beneath you, utterly within your power, and bereft of all agency in their own fate. If you actually think that's how things are, you are a very foolish person.
You're absolutely right, but at the same time I'm kind of okay with it.
If I be a dog beware my bite.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. Where I come from we do not believe in equality. In fact worship at the altar of this false god is responsible for most present day Western social ills. We believe in a society with a place for every man, and every man in his place, which is a lot more than your society offers your people. At least I believe that a persons rank comes from how virtuous they are/the actions they take to further humanity and help the weak, and not their birth like in the Caste system. One element of it that I like though is how in your face it is with rejecting equality with its "By making me be born High Caste and you Low Caste, the Gods themselves have decreed that I am better than you, and who are you to argue with the Gods?"
Mindless belief in "equality" has led to the decline of noblesse oblige, for why should the elites have obligations to nurture and protect those who profess to be their equals? In my day job I try and make as much money as I can off of my equals while staying within the rules of the game, I don't think of their welfare like parents think of the welfare of their children. If they want to be protected by the likes of me from the real world which is raw and violent and devours at the least sign of weakness, then they better start to show some fucking obeisance (as poor people back home do).
Within my power personally? Not at all, and I like it this way, power and responsibility go hand in hand, and I don't want any more responsibility for these people more than the ~45% the government takes of my income at the moment for their benefit. Within the power of the people at the top? Absolutely. And this is as it should be.
Oh, these people have a lot of agency in their own fate. However Western society coddles them by shielding them from the consequences of their decisions effectively 100% of the time. If you're going to be protected regardless of every stupid decision you make, might as well treat you like the child in a parent-child relationship (where the parent is the state) because that is exactly what is going on here.
The problem with this view is that, to a first approximation, all people have functioning brains and working hands. That is to say, they can do things, and a subset of those things can kill you no matter how "superior" you may be. I've read up-thread that some Tech guru just got stabbed to death on the street in San Francisco. My guess is that in most ways he was unquestionably superior to his murderer, but those ways did not include being immune to stabbings.
Show that you can actually protect and serve them in some meaningful capacity, and they might offer the obeisance, or at least obedience and loyalty. But I've seen no evidence that you or people who think like you are capable of that. Your statements leave me with the impression that you are fundamentally selfish, and selfish people cannot be trusted with power of any sort, precisely because their understanding of the function and use of power is exactly backward. The noblesse oblige comes first, then the loyalty, never the other way around.
You'll get no argument from me that Enlightenment obsession with Levelling is stupid and obviously destructive, or that some people are better in important ways than others. But Hierarchy is a means to an end, not an end in itself, and you don't appear to comprehend that.
They aren't, though. The society you exploit for your personal aggrandizement is maintained by mutual consent, not force. Failure to understand this on the part of Elites like yourself has an appreciable chance of causing your own personal death, and a much larger chance of significantly degrading your standard of living. The power you are appealing to does not exist. It is a mirage, a hallucination, and it is in serious danger of leading people who think as you do off a cliff, and dragging the rest of us with them.
This may be, but perhaps you could describe the actual specifics of what decisions they've made that justify such an analysis?
Oh, absolutely. In the end we are all human and have the standard human weaknesses (can't go without fresh air for more than 5 minutes, inevitably age and degrade etc.). People get stabbed daily in SF though, it's still a testament to his superiority that his case is the one that gets broadcast far and wide all over the globe while the stabbing of his murderer would have led at best to a few sentences on Page 2 of the local newspapers.
Who do you think pays the taxes which allow the lower classes to live the lives they live? The people at the top subsidise the lower classes to an unimaginable degree in the west. Not just through direct taxation, but also indirectly through job market laws, tariffs etc..
The reason a coffee costs £3 in the UK but 30p in Turkey is because the UK labour market is artificially restricted to Turkish people who'd happily take 50p for a coffee but can't move to the UK to do so. The jobs that the PMC do by and large already recruit from a global talent pool so we don't benefit from the labour market restrictions on foreigners while the jobs of the lower classes have their wages massively propped up by them. Every time I pay £3 instead of 30p for a coffee I'm being forced to subsidise the western lower classes by another £2.70.
By and large the actually competent people who choose to work in a field beneficial for humanity rather than just care about making as much money for themselves as possible are already helping/serving the lower classes (ok, as someone in finance this is not me). For instance I know people who went to work in the NHS in IT managing an ecosystem set up by a US for profit company rather than just work for the for profit company directly and get paid 3x. Same with competent people choosing to work in the public sector etc.
Strangely though I never hear the laudations of the lower classes for these competent people who are giving up large sums of money they could be earning to help society. Rather I get a fair bit of envy and opprobrium towards them that these people are still earning multiples of the average wage and thus don't give a shit about society. See the vitriol targeted at Andrew Bailey (Governor of the BoE) for earning six figures (he could easily earn 7 figures in industry) after he asked employers to tamper down on pay rises for staff to mitigate the risk of an inflationary spiral.
Now this I take objection to. In life I try and incorporate elements of the code of my ancestors, the Pashtunwali. Generosity towards others is a fundamental component, and in real life I give freely. Indeed based on just your comment above, if you agree to it, I will match a $1,000 donation from you to the Helen Keller International Vitamin A program (one of GiveWell's top charities of the year). I try to do my charitable giving in private but in real life I have been praised (more than once) for my generosity towards the less fortunate. Doesn't mean I don't see them as beneath me. As Christ said (see Acts 20:35): "It is better to give than to receive".
Indeed it's easy to talk the talk about how "we are all equal", but when it comes to walking the walk and actually helping the poor many of the exact same moralisers who act holier than thou suddenly balk. The offer stands, I'll match your donation to them (or any other GiveWell top charity should you prefer another one) up to $1,000. I encourage you to take it. It will help the actual global poor who's only crime is being born in the wrong place.
Of course. We humans are a hierarchical species though and need some sort of it to exist for long term flourishing and at the moment the zeitgeist is trying to smash it instead. Equally see how breathing is a means to an end, we don't live to breathe but it is absolutely necessary and if something happens to us that impairs our ability to breathe it is generally number 1 on our list of priorities to immediately fix.
Of course. Society depends on mutual consent. The law of the jungle is nasty and brutish. Indeed it is most nasty and most brutish towards those least able to mitigate it, namely the poor and stupid. During revolutions the poor suffer more than the rich, the rich are only the ones whose names are remembered by history.
Power doesn't have to be forceful to exist. See how rising interest rates are killing off a lot of the excesses of the last decade because suddenly money isn't cheap any more. Same here, the people who run things have a large amount of power over those at the bottom, see Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent for an example of how you control the masses with effectively zero force.
Not caring about education, not valuing personal excellence, not finding a stable partner and settling down with them instead of sleeping around (both men and women), not maintaining strong familial bonds, gambling money they don't have, buying stuff on credit when they don't have any concrete plan for paying it off, not taking care of their health, not eating well (contrary to claims it's pretty cheap to eat well healthily), not striving to improve themselves as a human being, general trashy behaviour, doing drugs and being a public nuisance afterwards, advocating for policies that artificially keep their wages high relative to the true global value of their work (were it any other product we'd absolutely be calling it a cartel), not taking advantages of the massive opportunities that citizenship of a western country brings them etc.
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