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 -
If that is discrimination then any law enacted in a mostly democratic nation is surely? Stealing is outlawed because the majority of the populace want it to be. Is outlawing theft discrimination against those who want to steal?
If so then it's so broad a term to be meaningless.
And there is nothing to stop rural voters outnumbering urban voters, there is plenty of open space in the US, more people could move to the country and still have it be near empty. If enough people wanted to be rural then they could be.
If rural voters get a veto then urban voters should get a veto and suburban voters, and criminal voters and car salesmen voters and Appalachians and Cajuns and so on and so on.
Laws against theft protect everyone against theft. I have never yet met a thief who was happy to be stolen from.
Sure, in theory. What do you think this shows?
As I note to gdanning below: yes. And not just groups of people, but individuals, too. The vast majority of governance is both unnecessary and coercive.
Which is basically just invalidating democracy as a political option. Which is fine. But there don't appear to have been any non-coercive societies. Even going back to hunter-gatherer tribes. Not following the rules got you killed or exiled and you probably didn't get a say in what the elders decided.
I'd argue the whole scope of human history is that governance is exactly what we need. The trick is to make people want it and buy into it. Which democracy is pretty good at, because everyone (in theory) gets an equal say. If you can persuade enough people to agree with you, you can enact Libertarianism or Communism or Neo-liberalism. It's the opposite of discrimination in that everyone is equal. A rural vote is worth an urban vote is worth a black vote is worth a white vote is worth a womans vote is worth a mans vote. Rural voters who hold position X can attempt to persuade urban voters to hold position X and vice versa. People who think there should be fewer rules can try and persuade everyone else. If a rural vote is worth more than an urban vote, that is discrimination surely?
Though to be clear, that doesn't mean it might not be JUSTIFIED from a practical perspective. If urban living is more attractive (for whatever reason) and you start to have issues with rural people being less important (democratically) and this causes instability then you might want to as part of a package of measures inflate the importance of rural votes and rural wealth. Decrease taxes on rural economic drivers, push each rural vote to be worth 1.01 votes of everyone else for example. Discrimination can actually be practically necessary. But democratically it should just be transparent. Make a case for why it is needed see if you can convince enough voters etc.
I think our values are somewhat contrariwise in that I think humanity has shown we need pretty firm governance and the main thing to worry about it buy in and stability not maximizing individual liberty, which is (in my view) much less important than the overall health of society (which will in turn mean individuals are better off than they would be on their own). But I am pretty flexible in what steps are necessary for that. That different groups may need different treatment and various thumbs on the scales in pursuit of that larger goal is I think absolutely plausible.
Indeed I would argue the two groups in the US right now that do need that treatment are (primarily) black urban communities and (primarily) white rural communities and increasing the value of their votes could be one way to achieve that. Just not because they should have a veto for a principled libertarian reason or because we need less governance overall. Not sure if that would put us on the same side pragmatically or not though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link