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 -
Every regime in power by necessity, has to try and create ideological buy-in with the rest of the population, to draw in their support and compliance that provides them with the legitimacy the seek. But it doesn't have to broadly succeed to be able to remain in power. If you look at the approval ratings of the current administration in the US, I think it quite easily spells out that you can rule over your citizens and subjects, despite strong disagreement and not trusting any of their institutional organs.
With libertarians, there's a tradeoff between resilience and efficiency. Libertarianism works very well in near equilibrium systems, but struggles massively with radical shifts and systemic changes. A lot of inadequate solutions to problems that have politically been punted to economists to figure out often fail, because the nature of the solutions are hopelessly mired at the margins. They deal in smooth, frictionless, 'incremental' changes. When time runs out for gradual change to take place to settle to a solution and you need decisive action, you need the scale of change to take place that's truly revolutionary. In the modern technological world we live in, you need strategic top-down, decisive action. And that often comes in the form of centralized power and authority that can make large-scale, sweeping changes take place.
The problem with a lot of democratic societies is that they often show that they're unable of making effective top-down decisions that are proportionate to the severity of the problem. In fact, they were specifically designed to 'prevent' people from taking drastic actions. This is why at heart I'm an authoritarian and don't have problems identifying with fascist ideology.
How much do you suppose the average Tang dynasty farmer approved of the Emperor's bureaucrats? Or how the average Medieval English peasant felt about their local earl? Peasant revolts were not uncommon during the Middle Ages, but the people in charge remained on top (my go-to example of the German Peasants' War is but one of many). Oderint dum metuant. Superior coercive force goes a long way in keeping large numbers of people under one's proverbial boot.
I'm not sure if you're simply adding to my statement or disputing it. I fully agree with the point you're making here.
Adding some reinforcement to the quoted part — that was a rhetorical "you, the reader", not "you, Tretiak" in that first question; I can see, re-reading my comment, how that could be unclear. Sorry about that.
And maybe a bit of disputation on the necessity of "ideological buy-in with the rest of the population." Again, it seems like you mostly just need that from your military/enforcers, not powerless peasants (the long commented correlation between labor-intensity of warfare and levels of "democratization"). I mean, look at any time one group of people have conquered and subjugated another. (How much "ideological buy-in" did the Romans ever get from the Jews?)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link