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 -
I did make an argument in favor of patronage. And it isn't an inherent principle of the right not to support right wing art and it isn't going far also.
The funny thing is that you are the one who is not making an argument in favor of eliminating left wing subsidies first as a superior alternative. Why not both eliminate left wing subsidies (or some of them) and promote right wing art? There is no argument there why not doing that other than dogmatism in favor of not doing that and claiming that your dogma is the dogma of the right to force them to do as they want.
You might prefer a right that doesn't do things, but you haven't argued why that is a good idea. Agree with me or not, I did provide arguments in favor of patronage. That good art is a good in itself and more right wing art will be good thing and also there are other important considerations than line goes up. That vacuum is not a realistic alternative and will be filled by those willing to fund and support it as humanity cares about art. And an attitude against patronage also leads to artists aligning with the left which will give them the support they crave. Also it is annoying for right wing figures to just complain and not promote the change we want to see in the world too and not try to bring forth the good and non leftist art we desire.
Anyway, in addition to the arguments I already made, I would say that the same mentality that leads in being a naysayer against doing any of what I advocated will lead to the right not eliminating all the subsidies in favor of the left as well, like they haven't eliminated them so far and been complicit in their funding. Moreover, it isn't my principle that it is good for the level of subsidies towards art to be 0.
Actually, it is my experience that this claim that it is the principle of the right to not do x and go that far is predominantly a promotion of the right being losers that leads into the political landscape where the left dominates we have currently. Over the alternative of it being a sensible call for restraint. It is also annoying how you are trying to control others by telling them what is their dogma and trying to constrain them to dogmatism. Very manipulative.
So I would add another argument. Succeeding in doing things makes it less easy for bad policy and bad dogmas to be promoted as constraints. Since there will already be the experience of doing things, which is better over the alternative that it actually goes far to support right wing art which is a very extreme claim. Libertarian dogmatism is a different ideology to the right. Limiting the goverment to an extend is a part of the right wing toolbox, but when it comes the utmost focus, we have the subversion of one movement and political faction by the agenda of a very different one. One that when it stands on its own two feet and directly seeks power and doesn't use the right as a vehicle goes nowhere and is supported by a very small amount of people. Although your general opposition to supporting right wing art as going too far, goes beyond libertarianism to an even more extreme area. Defying your dogmatism and this loser mentality is another good reason for the right to promote patronage.
You basically said the right should abandon their libertarian ethos.
I’m saying “before you do that, perhaps live up to it by eliminating subsidies.”
This is of course a conservative approach. Incremental change and see if it solves the problem.
I don't consider the libertarian ethos to be the ethos of the right both historically and presently since they have been willing to go along with the funding of academia, organizations of a left wing hue. This also is not the philosophy of the right but a tool to the toolbox. Not the philosophy of right wing voters neither. Which is to say that being opposed to excessive parasitism.
If you want libertarian as an ethos there is the libertarian movement, not conservatism.
Do you have anything that addresses my arguments instead of trying to force your way through by defining falsely your way as the conservative way? I don't appreciate you telling me I didn't make an argument in your prior post neither. As I said, the argument that like a robot the right should do something because the right should do something is a bad and cyclical one and the right should promote patronage also so this kind of bad logic will be taken even less seriously in the future.
Removing all left wing subsidies including parasitism in private organizations that have created large diversity programs that relate to art will not be an incremental change but a large one. So someone could use your logic against doing it because supposedly it isn't the conservative way. Indeed, considering the lack of popularity of hardcore libertarianism, it actually helps promote an image of extremism to the right. You will be able on net to make a bigger change by trying to both promote patronage and reduce left wing art subsidies than focusing only on the later.
Incremental change is also very obviously not necessarily the conservative way. It depends what is your standing point. If you are in a very far left situation, and experience a huge change from a previous more conservative default, trying to change things again would be the conservative way. A large change to a conservative direction is conservatism even though leftists and other non conservatives would like for conservatism to be something different. Funnily enough I am not even very conservative but of more moderate conservative bent. So I am not even willing to always support the more conservative position, just cause that is what a conservative supposed to do.
The attempt to define conservatism as being a pushover, loser who isn't allowed to push too far as a defining aspect of the right is promoting both a falsehood and contributes to political left wing domination. Which rises the question of why you are doing this.
In Eastern Europe when Communism fell they didn't half ass it, but allowed huge change, and even blacklisted political commissars. But actually it is not necessarilly against incremental change.
Your logic here is very fallacious. The "cancel all left wing subsidies" is not an option that is in offer that can be done first. You are offering a false alternative. As the uniparty is not libertarian that aint happening. Like I have said in both my first post, and reply to you and you didn't care and bypassed, vacuum is unrealistic.
Trying to both reduce left wing subsidies and promote right wing art will work more in line with incremental change because there are constraints of how much political change can be done. While not doing right wing patronage at all will result in a lack of change instead of a higher % of artists supporting the right and right wing art.
Importantly, your way of thinking is corrosive in itself and restrains action in the private sphere too. It is bad for right wingers to be so unorganized and impotent. Both for society which does not benefit from their contributions and where left wing extremism is left unchallenged, and for themselves who know deep inside that they are failing their potential. Actually the right wing already does patronage to in terms of political content with podcasts, and shows. Your logic would lead to that being abandoned as well and left dominating even more hard than it does now.
Not that I am in favor of small change here though. I am also not in favor of unlimited change to the right, or even things being as lopsided in a right as they are now to the left. Especially of a right as far right as the current left and callers of right wing restraint in the current circumstances are far left.
If I were to follow the logic of the robot which must always choose the dogma, and in this case actual real conservatism and not what you call as conservatism, there would be no reason for me to oppose any institution, or media from going further conservative to the purest form. Alas, people ought to have more sophisticated preferences than that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link