site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31307 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 15, 2023

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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yes, correct, that is precisely what we are arguing. There has been no right-wing government in the Anglosphere in living memory.

Okay, well, if your model for a "good" right-wing government is Mussolini or Pinochet, you're doing a poor job convincing me this is a bad thing.

So, telling me that right-wing Anglosphere governments have failed in your lifetime is a non-sequitur.

Fair enough, but you have zero good examples to convince me that right-wingers would do better. Arguing that the problem with Reagan and Thatcher is that they weren't right-wing enough certainly doesn't sell me on this.

You’ve already massively moved the goalposts. Your initial argument is that right-wing Anglosphere governments - which you defined as Reagan, Thatcher, and Bush - have demonstrably failed to produce good results. You have now switched to “Alright, there haven’t been any actual right-wing Anglosphere governments, so I haven’t actually witnessed one producing bad results, but *you can’t prove that they wouldn’t have been bad if they had existed.*”

You’ve already massively moved the goalposts. Your initial argument is that right-wing Anglosphere governments - which you defined as Reagan, Thatcher, and Bush - have demonstrably failed to produce good results.

Yes. They're about as right-wing as we've had, and your argument is "They weren't right-wing enough." Why do you expect me to accept your premise, that they weren't "really" right-wingers and had they been actual right-wingers - like Mussolini and Pinochet - they would have been successful? Because your "actual" right-wingers look even worse to me.

There are two separate arguments here: one is the question of whether or not Reagan/Thatcher/Bush are right-wing; the other is whether or not if they had been right-wing, that would have been a good thing. If your answer to Question 1 is “yes, they were right-wing”, then you don’t have to address Question 2, because you can just observe the results of those individuals’ governance and declare those the results of right-wing government. If your answer to Question 1 is “no, they were not right-wing”, then have to grapple with Question 2. You’re correct that I haven’t supplied any arguments in favor of the affirmative answer to Question 2; that’s because I’ve been trying to get you to accept that the answer to Question 1 isn’t “yes” in the first place.

You yourself appear to recognize on some level that the answer to Question 1 is “no”, because you supplied a couple of examples of leaders who were universally recognized as right-wing (Mussolini, Pinochet) and you acknowledged that there is a qualitative difference between those guys and the three people you named. Even if you believe that Reagan was the farthest-right president we’ve had in your lifetime, you also clearly recognize that he’s nowhere near as far-right as Mussolini. So, at this point we’re arguing about how far right on the spectrum a leader has to be before we say he is right-wing. If your answer is “anywhere even slightly to the right of some hypothetical center”, that’s fine, but I don’t think that’s the definition most people here would use to define what makes a government legitimately right-wing. Especially because you’d have to define the center, and that might mean recognizing that the center of the American Overton Window has, for at least 80 years, been far to the left of even the leftmost part of the Overton Window in, say, 1840.

You yourself appear to recognize on some level that the answer to Question 1 is “no”, because you supplied a couple of examples of leaders who were universally recognized as right-wing (Mussolini, Pinochet) and you acknowledged that there is a qualitative difference between those guys and the three people you named.

No, I recognize that "right-wing" is a spectrum, just like left-wing. I think Reagan was too right-wing, you think he wasn't right-wing enough. I think right-wing policies have not delivered good results. To me, you are just making a 50 Stalins argument in reverse.

So, at this point we’re arguing about how far right on the spectrum a leader has to be before we say he is right-wing.

Aside from your complaint about immigration amnesty, how was Reagan not a right-winger? Or is anyone who doesn't want to roll back to the Articles of Confederation not a right-winger? Or have there been no right-wing governments since the Enlightenment?

Especially because you’d have to define the center, and that might mean recognizing that the center of the American Overton Window has, for at least 80 years, been far to the left of even the leftmost part of the Overton Window in, say, 1840.

Yes, the center has moved since 1840. The Overton Window moves in large part because issues change. People in 1840 wouldn't even recognize a lot of our issues. Conservatives who complain about having been fighting a losing battle since slavery was abolished and women were given the right to vote have a point, I guess, but you're still doing a poor job of convincing me that True Conservativism Has Never Been Tried.

Aside from your complaint about immigration amnesty, how was Reagan not a right-winger?

Reagan's domestic policies were, courtesy of wikiepdia:

Reduce marginal tax rates on income from labor and capital.

Reduce regulation.

Tighten the money supply to reduce inflation.

Reduce the growth of government spending.

These need to be measured from where the US was in 1980. Marginal tax rates in 1980 were 43% on income over $40k. That could be about $120k now. I would guess that there are people who want to raise taxes that high, but they are no centrists. Income over $20k ($60k) in modern dollars was taxed at 24%.

I don't think tightening the money supply when inflation is at 13% is a right wing idea.

Federal spending under Reagan was about 22% of GDP. This is more then then pre-COVID rate under Trump, but 2.5% less than Biden. In contrast, Obama spent just over 20%.

It is hard to measure regulations.

On foreign policy, Reagan does not seem that right wing, compared to Biden, unless you count being against communism as "right wing."

In hindsight, Reagan looks very centrist. What about him makes you think him more right-wing than Obama? He might have been more right-wing than Nixon (SSI. affirmative action, EPA, clean water act), I suppose. Overall, Nixon looks to the left of Obama on that measure. Obama was very centrist.

Am I missing something or is the switch primarily a result of your argument? You didn't defend Reagan, Thatcher, or Bush, and said yourself there were no rightwing governments in the anglosphere... like, what else is he supposed to say? Is it ok if he brings up Pinochet or Mussolini as right-wing failure modes?

Of course he can bring up Pinochet and Mussolini as right-wing failure modes, he just can’t use them as examples of right-wing governments that have produced bad results in his lifetime, nor of Anglosphere right-wing governments more generally.

nor of Anglosphere right-wing governments more generally.

Well, duh - they don't exist!

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats