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 -
Piracy is ethical in the same way that shoplifting is ethical.
Ie: it isn't. It is stealing plain and simple. There is no ethical justification for piracy, including yours. If you don't like the politics behind a product, simply don't consume it or accept that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
But! You could consider a certain rate of shrink to be a part of the market and write it off.
There are more people that want products than there are people that can afford products, and there are (sometimes!) more products produced than people that can afford to buy them. If that percentage cancels itself out to zero, it is a legit victimless crime.
Once piracy starts cutting into the share of shit that would ACTUALLY get sold, is when there is a problem.
Do you think using sci-hub to pirate papers, instead of paying the journal $50 - where the authors paid to submit to the journal and won't see any of the $50 - is unethical?
More options
Context Copy link
Piracy is fundamentally different from theft. If I steal a loaf of bread from a store, the store has one fewer loaves of bread to sell. If I pirate a song, the record label doesn't have reduced stock.
Additionally, copyright (and intellectual property in general) is a legal fiction created by the state. Meanwhile physical property rights, while largely enforced by the state, are near universally recognized across all cultures in the world throughout the entirety of history. Copyright has only existed for a few hundred years in western countries, and for even shorter periods in the rest of the world (and even then only due to globalization of trade, cultural exports from the west, etc.).
Yet physical property rights are also a fiction, which have only existed for a couple hundred years out of the thousands of years of human history. Up until the 1700's ish, all property was defacto owned by the king.
There is nothing stopping the Viking a'reaving up your coastline on his long ship but social pressure and the monopoly of violence; property rights are not physical law.
That said, if you want to argue the socialist de-commodification of all human endeavor, I won't stop you. That shit would be tight, if it could be made to function.
Bruh, there were laws against theft as far back as humans have records (i.e. Hammurabi's code). Private property absolutely was a thing, believing in socialism doesn't magically change history to match your worldview.
More options
Context Copy link
I pretty sure the concept of "theft", meaning one non-king taking property owned by another non-king, has existed in every significant polity since before the invention of writing, so this claim makes no sense. There's numerous references to it in the Mosaic law, for example, which clearly predates 1700. I'm pretty sure Hammurabi had stuff to say about it as well.
I'm hardly a socialist, but it's hard to make a case that scarcity is better than non-scarcity, all else being equal.
What is with this thread?
I mean, yes, but theft was defacto fine up until the birth of the modern state, because you could just roll into town and kill whoever you wanted, enslave the rest, take there shit to birke or wherever and sell it then go back home to be raided yourself.
The thing that makes a crime a crime in practice is not the law, it is the certainty of consequences.
Edit: Also I AM a socialist, I'm arguing devils advocate/ what is rational in the current model.
"plunder" and "theft" are easy to distinguish, because one happens within a community, and the other happens between communities. The idea that you owe obligations of mutual good-faith to those you live with that are not owed to strangers or foreigners is a pretty common one throughout history, and it seems pretty defensible to me. The fact that social groupings didn't recognize property rights outside their community doesn't imply they didn't recognize them within the community. Similarly, when laws were invented, people recognized that they applied within the communities that enacted them, and were not universal to the whole world. Law does depend on enforcement for much of its validity, but more than that it depends on a concept of justice, which starts out localized and moves to the universal, rather than the opposite.
But then couldn't I define my community as limited to my family and excuse myself for stealing from everybody else?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've been arguing philosophy around intellectual property for over a decade and this is pretty standard in a space with thinkers like The Motte. Some of the biggest fights I saw among AnCaps were around Intellectual Property. This look a little familiar?
It's an issue like abortion, it gets at the very foundation of philosophical concepts that the vast majority take for granted. Like most things people come up with post hoc justifications for what they want, the smarter the person the more clever the reasoning.
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