site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29605 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Do you feel that it's just viscerally unfair that some people need to work and some people don't?

How could you deny that this is viscerally unfair? Seems the most blatant example ever. Not that we know how to fix the problem, but damn it's unfair as hell.

So what about it is unfair?

Come to think of it what is your understanding of fairness here?

Fairness is an individual having to put into society before taking out and enjoying themselves. At least until we have a state of affairs where that can be an individual choice.

It's unfair that a rich scion can simply coast off the work of others and never have to struggle or put in, while the vast majority strain and buckle under their responsibilities.

So fairness in this sense is only submission and dependence to a given social group?

What of the Randian argument? What of the unfairness of society leeching on the gifted?

What of, in this conception, the unfairness of inequality between states? It is unfair in this sense that Western countries get to have the infrastructure built by their older generations whilst the third world does not?

Not to fall into clichés but can you explain how this is not literally "from each according to their ability, to each according to his needs" state socialism?

The socialists have a strong point. I doubt they’d be so popular otherwise.

The Randian argument is hogwash to me. Objectivism and objectivity as a whole are flawed viewpoints. Religious systems are the only way we can make sense of the complexity of society. I’m simply arguing that the modern world has drastically decoupled wealth, power and status from actual virtue.

It's unfair that a person can work all their life, save their assets, then get run over by a bus (or die of a heart attack) too. Doesn't mean there has to be some government solution to that.

We have driving laws and healthcare precisely as the government solution to those problems.

The government should and does work to prevent people getting run over by buses. We fight against the arbitrariness of disease and ill health in pretty much every facet, as @self_made_human can attest.

Pretty much all of society in some sense is working towards making things more 'fair,' otherwise we are just in a state of nature with the mighty taking what they will from the rest.

I think you're assuming a lot here, many proponents of civilization and the escape from the state of nature believe in procedural fairness, and explicitly decry this sort of equalizing.

It's the whole giant gap between the French and English traditions of Liberalism. And a convincing argument can be made that they are inherently at odds because enacting cosmic justice is almost always procedurally unfair.

It depends on whether you value inherent human dignity more versus human work and discipline.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Both value discipline highly, and dignity is an essentially empty word that just maps onto whatever moral framework we're using.

The dignity of Englishmen prohibits redistribution by the State. And French popular democracy's founding myth is one of pure discipline in the Bataillons.

I wager the difference is actually whether you believe in natural law (in the classic Aristotelian sense) or not. Thomas Sowell, who despite being partial had the benefit of having been on both sides, correctly identifies this in The Quest for Cosmic Justice.

Are we fit to reorder the universe or is that God's job?

If pressed on it, I'll agree that it's unfair, but it's not a sentiment that I have a strong gut feeling on. My reason for asking isn't strong disagreement on the point, it's that I'm trying to get at where the sentiment that Something Must Be Done is coming from and whether it stems primarily from thinking about outcomes or mostly from a strong gut feeling that it sucks that Blake Vanderworth IV has a trust fund.

It's partially the gut feeling of rich scions getting to coast on unearned wealth. Underlying that is the fact, to my mind, that most of the rich do not actually benefit society. Our market is far from perfect in that way. Many make their fortunes off the backs of others, or by dumping horrid amounts of negative externality into the rest of society, simply because the externalities cannot easily be quantified.

Many see rich people and ascribe their wealth not to their intelligence or hard work or even luck but to the imposition of negative externalities on others... simply because the externalities cannot easily be quantified.

Again, there is nuance to be had here. Many rich people bust their ass and absolutely deserve the wealth that they have generated, from a cosmic sense. Then again, I tend to think that the way our society is set up is so rotten to its core that even the most 'beneficial' wealth generation will have tons of negative aspects. The most common of which is to destroy human connection, religion, generally the things which make life worth living.

It really depends on how you view the overarching modern capitalist societal structure. I'm not a Marxist by any means, and I think market economies are an incredible tool. But at this point they have ceased being a tool and become our master, for all intents and purposes.

If you look at a rich person and say "Hey, they must have gotten rich by imposing negative externalities on society, let's take their assets", then even if you theoretically admit the existence of rich people who "absolutely deserve the wealth that they have generated", that's not nuance, it's a cynical demand for leveling. If you're wearing a blindfold while searching for your virtuous rich man, you certainly don't want to find him.

I have never once said we should take rich people's assets, I'm not a Marxist or a redistributionist. However I can understand why so many are eager to paint me with that brush.

I'd simply like to raise awareness that wealth and money do not equal virtue, and in many cases are anti-correlated. Instead of redistributing wealth, I think a better path would be having a conversation about negative externalities of the market and trying to figure out how to price those in.

On top of that, I'd like to see a scaling back of certain areas like religion and the sacred from markets entirely, although I'll admit having both at once would be a difficult challenge.

I have never once said we should take rich people's assets

You don't have to connect the dots yourself if you place the points and draw arrows.

I'd simply like to raise awareness that wealth and money do not equal virtue

I think this is well-understood; the lack of awareness is the other way around. That no, having wealth doesn't mean you committed mortal sins to obtain it. That inequality of wealth is not something that in itself demands solutions.

Instead of redistributing wealth, I think a better path would be having a conversation about negative externalities of the market and trying to figure out how to price those in.

Externalities are almost by definition hard to measure, and it's very easy to put your finger on the scale by picking which ones to measure and assigning arbitrary values to them. And there's not much point in discussion when you've already decided they net out to "dumping horrid amounts of negative externality into the rest of society".

The point of the discussion, and my favored argument at the moment, is that markets have a use but should not be how we organize all wealth and value as a society. Pointing out critiques of a market system without crying out for the blood of the rich is an important stance from my viewpoint, and one that is sorely missing from the culture war conversation.

I don't see how smart people working hard becoming rich not to have to work is unfair.

I think it's unfair, and that is me.

I didn't do anything to deserve a high enough IQ or a low compulsion to gamble or a lack of desire to alter my state of concious; that shit just happened to fall out that way.

If I sit here and say, "The cosmic hapenstance that alowes my pleasent life is fine and just" why can't someone say "the cosmic hapenstance of me shooting you in the head and taking you shit is also fine and just", bassicaly.

Because you actually do have control over whether you shoot someone in the head. The universe being deterministic doesn't change that.

If you assume that 'becoming rich' automatically equals benefitting society and that there is no possible way to become rich while being a net negative on our world, then sure it's fair. Unfortunately our world is not set up that way.

No, I'm only assuming that the average rich person becomes rich in a way that is a net benefit to society.

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