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 -
The twisting to come to this conclusion is almost head spinning. I hear what you're saying from a 10,000 foot level, but the boots on the ground reality does not match with your assessment of this hypothetical. Some regimes and societies are better to live in than others. That is just a fact. If you would rather live under Stalin than Obama then I don't think anyone can have a real conversation with you unless you're a hard core USSR stan.
For who? For whom? If I were a bolshevik and all else were equal, it would be the rational choice.
Besides, I'm not seeing a counter argument.
How about a more extreme example then rather than just the revealed preference as shown by the Berlin wall needing to be put up. Just about anyone in the world would rather live in the USA than Bangladesh. One country and society is obviously better by any reasonable metric I can personally think of. Just because both governments may do something you don't like doesn't make them the same.
Who said I don't like it? That's never been in contention here. It doesn't matter if I like it or not, nor if you do, it's how things are.
In practice I do think our predicament is a bit tragic, would be nice if Isildur could hold the ring and be just fine, but I'm still waiting for you to engage the point instead of some imagined position.
Being a "True Opponent" of either Putin (and establishment in Russia) or Obama (and establishment in US) does not have the same result. So by "True Opponent", what do you mean exactly?
So what's the difference? The delivery mechanism for the explosive charge that ends you, the lunch menu of the prison you rot in without a trial or what?
What? You didn't answer my question in any way shape or form. If you can't tell one country from another and what is better about some of them then what are you even here to discuss?
I think I can tell the difference quite well. I can characterize it in specific terms.
And indeed I think that predictions that use my characterization are more accurate than yours.
For instance I can explain why the UK jails a lot more (about 4x) people for political crimes than Russia or why Russia more readily kills its political prisoners.
Can you?
pol·i·tics
1. c. the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
In those terms, a true opponent is someone who can challenge such a control. With or without violence, with or without designs of control for himself. Anyone who endangers the serenity of a sovereign.
I use the word true because as you know, it is routine in the exercise of power by foxes to setup fake opposition that only ever demands more control for the establishment. These people are usually left alone, because they are friends, not enemies.
So where would you rather live I suppose is the real question? Bangladesh? Russia? USA? UK? France? Iran? They are all very different places. Just because some levers of power look the same to you does not make the world flat.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link