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 -
What part would you like me to address? You spoke of "good regulation" and "bad regulation" first, so it would make sense to start with that discussion and then see how it flows into other pieces. I'm really not sure what you're demanding of me.
Read the whole post please.
You asked for a more detailed argument and explanation of why the slope is slippery, I gave you one. If you're going to refuse to address the whole argument and revert back to discussing the specifics of the regulation like you seem to enjoy instead of addressing the tendency, it's pointless for me to produce anything because you're never going to discuss why people disagree with you.
Which as has been pointed out to you numerous times now, has nothing to do with the specifics of this particular regulation.
I read the whole post. You started off talking about good regulation and bad regulation, then got to some considerations of slippery slope dynamics. Is the former part just irrelevant? I was going by Grice's maxims that it did, in fact, have relevance. It seems like it is relevant to the dynamics of slippery slope dynamics. If it's not relevant, please let me know. I'd especially like to know why you don't actually think it's relevant. Do you think that it actually doesn't matter whether something is a 'good regulation' or a 'bad regulation', and that the only thing that matters is the slippery slope part, where you think that all regulations end up in the bad category? If so, it would have been nice if you said something along these lines. I was just trying to go through your considerations in a systematic fashion.
What I think, which I have now stated numerous times, including in my first response, is that the specifics of any particular regulation and how good it is aren't relevant, what is relevant is the tendency of organizations that are allowed and legitimated in producing such regulation.
However reasonable a given rule is of no consequence if it enables unreasonable rules to be made and if unreasonable rule makers necessarily outcompete reasonable rule makers.
Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that this regulation is a good one. It has no effect on the validity of the argument or on my support or opposition to it on the grounds I have stated. Evaluating it alone with this criteria is therefore pointless.
Ok, so "read the whole post" means "ignore the first two thirds and just read the last third". Got it. Violates Grice's maxims and makes you a bad communication entity, but got it.
Ok, so flesh out those "ifs". In your long post, you spoke about power rising up to take power. In this context, it would sound like what you're worried about is cashing out in terms of regulatory capture/crony capitalism. That powerful corporate interests will rise to impose unreasonable regulations to form barriers to entry. This is a totally plausible thing to happen, and perhaps we could consider some reasoning for when this is likely to happen/not happen, and how damaging it is likely to be in a particular domain. Plausibly, this has something to do with the regulations in question or the regulatory bodies in question, or something. Or is this truly just a long-form way of restating, "Once we've crossed epsilon, the worst conclusion in inevitable."
No. This frame of understanding it is much to narrow and presupposes some distinction between the private and public sector which is fictitious and is only a feature of Liberal social theory and its derivatives.
It's not powerful corporate interests that rise up. It's powerful interests of any kind.
It does not. This phenomenon is a feature of all human organizations.
You asked for a full explanation of my position. I've not changed my mind. I'm just explaining why I believe what I believe. And that does include that this epsilon regulation is teologically undesirable.
Fair enough. California already sealed our fate years ago, and I guess this conversation has nowhere else to go.
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