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 -
Along the same lines as "Mary Rice Davies applies" i increasingly feel like we need a "Joker's Dark Knight speach applies".
No one freaks out when a homeless schizophrenic attacks somone because its all part of a plan. But when an ostensible "normie" does so everyone loses thier fucking mind because it exoses the central lie that underpins the entire secular progressive/humanist worldview. Rousseau, Locke, Mill, Rawls, Et Al were wrong.
And that lie is? The equal moral worth and dignity of the two? No, that's not it, you like that one.
That violence and ultimate agency/control resides with the state (or society) rather than with the individual. That the state of nature is "just".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Aren't you a fan of Hobbes? It's the same conclusion, just without the window dressing. The government keeps you from a state of nature. You owe it everything in return and it owes you nothing else. So if it wants you to refrain from acting against homeless schizophrenics, it is your duty to stoicly accept this and not act against homeless schizophrenics.
Hobbes, while he is the father of modern authoritarianism, would be considered a libertarian of all but anarchocapitalism in the modern era.
I don't see how. His social contract is "You accept this social contract which says that we, the sovereign, own you and can morally command you in any way we see fit. The only thing you get from that is you're no longer in a state of nature. If you reject this contract you're in a state of nature and we can do whatever we want to you, because that's how a state of nature works".
This is the standard leftist caricature of Hobbes yes, but as this case aptly illustrates, it completely fails to adress Hobbes' thesis.
Homeless schitzos menacing people is the state of nature. Upstanding citizens killing homeless schitzos out of hand is the state of nature.
The thing about social contracts that progressives do not seem to grasp is that they are reciprocal, imposing duties and privileges on both sides. A Hobbesian could easily argue that the City and State of New York rejected the contract first (or were at the very least derelict in their duties) because what happened on that subway was the state of nature and thus Sgt Penny was under no obligation to obey their rules.
The social contract is, at its base, a lie. It started as a justification of why one should obey the government, and the details are irrelevant, whether Hobbes, Rosseau, or even Locke. All "social contracts" boil down to "Society's representative, government, shall be the sole and final judge of all disputes under this contract". No other term is necessary, though if you want one it can be "Society, through it's representative, government, may change the terms of this contract at any time, prospectively or retrospectively, with or without notice".
Hobbes's just has a bit less window dressing than the rest. There are no enforceable reciprocal duties. An apparent "breach" on the part of the sovereign may only be judged by the sovereign, not answered by a breach on the part of the individual. So even if the city and state of New York were derelict, Penny does not lose his obligation to follow their rules. And if they rejected the contract, why, then Penny is in a state of nature, and the city and state of New York can enforce their laws upon him morally because in a state of nature, the strong do what they will.
That's certainly a take. I might even go so far as to suggest that the popularity of this sort of take amongst blue tribe professional-types is a large part of the reason the places run by them display the pathologies they do.
To be blunt, the details matter.
For all the talk about Hobbes being the "father of modern authoritarianism" have you noticed that when a state does go full authoritarian it's almost always the ones who are on more Rosseauean end of the spectrum (IE Communists, Socialists, and wacky 'cult of reason' types) who end up building the mountains of skulls?
I have a pet theory about why that is and it basically boils down to the attitude displayed in your comment. Like I said, the thing about social contracts is that they impose duties and privileges on both sides. I believe that the failure to grasp this, and the corresponding inability to appeal to any source of obligation or legitimacy other than violence and raw will to power, is major part of why left-wing ideologies seem so much more prone to totalitarianism and mass murder than right-wing ideologies.
Afterall the social contract is only "a lie" if you don't believe in it.
"Blue tribe professional types" babble on about the social contract all the time, as if it's a real thing that everyone agrees to that means you should obey (often accompanied by a sneer like "and if you don't like it, move to Somalia"). It's not a popular take at all.
It's a lie if the state doesn't believe in it. And states don't, generally, except in the sense I gave of an entirely one-sided obligation.
Babbling about something does not mean they understand it. Once again, something about social contracts that progressives do not seem to grasp is that they are reciprocal, imposing duties and privileges on both sides.
States don't have beliefs because states don't have agency, only individuals have agency.
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
I am, and no it is not, because a core component of Hobbes' thesis is that violence and ultimately control resides with the individual not the state. Accordingly, a state that declines to protect the individual is derelict in its duties and is owed nothing.
In the Hobbesian view an individual chooses to obey the law in the hopes that others will do the same. The job of the cops is not to protect the public from criminals but to protect criminals (and those suspected of being criminals) from the public. The cops failed to protect Neely by failing to arrest him and keep him separate from the public.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link