6 ms·

Is this culture war (illusion) dangerous? Are we against it, and if so, how do we end that?

pphysch 5y ago
The solution is more offensive to Americans than the problem. Stricter controls on online content including ads. Alas, that would be censorship.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  Since there is zero chance of it being applied impartially, yes it would be censorship and yes that cure would be worse than the disease.
  - tremon 5y ago
    Yes, that is the point the GP was making.
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  Leaves out the big elephant in the room, the o.g. Fox news, which is now metastasizing to even crazier alternate reality media outlets. For sure some non digital media examples on the left too but nothing even close to that scale. I do agree social media plays a big role in spreading alternate reality craziness on both sides, but political polarization won't go anywhere imho.
  - pphysch 5y ago
    Content controls would apply equally to "traditional" media.
    - dillondoyle 5y ago
      I probably wouldn't. But I do think it would be worth having 'truth in advertising' labels - that people will just ignore lol. Like Tucker Carslon != Walter Cronkite.
rsj_hn 5y ago
The only solutions to a culture war: 1) Domination: fight it out and exterminate the other side or disenfranchise them so much they become powerless to oppose your agenda. Then you rule over them and make sure to keep them weak and defeated otherwise they will switch tables on you. (Examples: Bismarcks' original Kulturkampf reversing to Weimer reversing to Nazis, Argentina's dirty war) 2) Devolution: decentralize even more and reduce power of Federal government (Examples: Lebanon. Switzerland) 3) Divorce: split into two different nations entirely. (Examples: Ethiopia/Eritrea split, Yugoslavia breakup) The reason why is that this is ultimately a religious war about values. People will die rather than give up their religion or change their core values. That means that if their core values are diametrically opposed, then will rather die than stop doing what the other side is convinced is immoral. This brings us to my favorite trilemma: a) diversity (of values) b) liberty c) a strong central government Pick two. Historically nations dealt with diversity of core beliefs by Federalism, e.g. letting one province be Catholic and the other Protestant and they just leave each other alone, with a central government that only takes action if both sides agree. But that's a very fragile arrangement prone to civil war -- e.g. Lebanon -- when there is a demographic shift that upsets the balance of power. The left, also, would not accept if, say, America split into a red and blue nation with the Red nation say not respecting gay rights or emitting lots of carbon. Blue America would invade them as they have a crusading vision that is global and totalizing. Personally, I favor devolution (best) or a national breakup (second best). Obviously I do not favor domination. But most people I know, and everyone I know on the left, favors domination. The right must be defeated. But it's easy for me to emigrate to a nation which is much more sane than the U.S., so I have less at stake than those stuck in America.
- ff317 5y ago
  I mostly agree with your analysis, but while Devolution sounds good on paper at an abstract distance, the reality of it is going to be (and is) a lot messier. The problem is that we don't have just Red-vs-Blue states in the US. We also have Red-vs-Blue subregions and counties within most (all?) states, and even within a nominally Red or Blue county, city, or town, you'll almost universally find a a sizable sub-population of the opposite bent. So, to pick an example hot-button issue: Abortion Rights. If the feds decentralize this issue and let states find their own paths, you'd have ample abortion rights in the blue states and virtually no abortion rights in red states. But many of these nominally red or blue states are really, say, a 70/30 or 60/40 split by population, and so a large (but non-majority) population of each state is now living under laws they despise, which is not going to make for good long-term outcomes. Over a long-enough time period, I suppose many would choose to move to other states and physically polarize the nation by-state, which is then going to make it easier and more natural to eventually Divorce the two sides as separate nations, and then they will almost surely have wars in the future over turf, politics, etc. But in the shorter term, most people don't have the freedom to just move states on a whim because of political change: they have families and friend networks, they have jobs to consider, financial and social costs of uprooting and moving, etc. It's still a relatively-rare privilege, among the whole US population, to be in a situation where you can easily move states as you feel like it on a political whim. You could also imagine a path where Devolution just gets more-fine-grained - the Feds leave more to the states, the states leave more to the counties, they leave more to the cities, etc. This would allow things to differ at a much more local level. All over the country, you might find a flip of the abortion laws every 20-30 miles traveling down the highway. This reduces the costs and challenges for the individual - now they can more-easily move a short distance for a set of laws they find palatable, or simply drive across legal lines for various services/purposes. However, I think having such a large menu of divisive and important legal issues vary at such a low level would lead to a lot of chaos and friction. You'd lose a lot of the advantages of being a relatively-homogeneous country. Imagine doing business in such a country and having to pay far more attention to the more-significant legal differences in every jurisdiction. It sounds like a mess! My current (perhaps naive!) opinion is that you can't fix this in an effective way through Devolution or Divorce - the costs are too high. I think this needs to be fixed at the per-human level: we need to become less-polarized as individuals, and elect less-polarized politicians as well. We need to learn to disagree without being disagreeable again, and to understand where each other is coming from. We used to have that (well, to a much larger degree than we do now) decades ago. I don't think Facebook alone created this mess, but tech is certainly playing a significant role in amplifying the problem rather than solving it. You have to reach a point where everyone can have conversations with all of their neighbors of the form "I disagree with your stance on X, but I can see why you think that way, and I want to explore where we have common ground and find a compromise solution that can make both of us reasonably happy to live alongside each other", or your society is doomed to eventually be a failed one. Being "right" on an issue is not as important as being good neighbors to each other and respecting others' views. Perhaps your particularly strong view of a certain issue will eventually prove itself to be universally acceptable/accepted (in the sense that eventually in some future year, an overwhelming majority of the population will agree with you instead of say, just the 35% that are in your political subcamp). However, you're not going to get there by going to war with the other 65% and demeaning and degrading them. You're going to get there by being understanding enough to have healthy relationships with them, and then perhaps minds can change more-naturally (and it may take a generation or two for some changes, but it's the only non-violent way to get there). You have to do this even if you don't think the other side is doing it, or even capable. It's the only way to have hope for a better future.

The solution is more offensive to Americans than the problem. Stricter controls on online content including ads. Alas, that would be censorship.

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
Since there is zero chance of it being applied impartially, yes it would be censorship and yes that cure would be worse than the disease.
- tremon 5y ago
  Yes, that is the point the GP was making.
dillondoyle 5y ago
Leaves out the big elephant in the room, the o.g. Fox news, which is now metastasizing to even crazier alternate reality media outlets. For sure some non digital media examples on the left too but nothing even close to that scale. I do agree social media plays a big role in spreading alternate reality craziness on both sides, but political polarization won't go anywhere imho.
- pphysch 5y ago
  Content controls would apply equally to "traditional" media.
  - dillondoyle 5y ago
    I probably wouldn't. But I do think it would be worth having 'truth in advertising' labels - that people will just ignore lol. Like Tucker Carslon != Walter Cronkite.

rsj_hn 5y ago

The only solutions to a culture war: 1) Domination: fight it out and exterminate the other side or disenfranchise them so much they become powerless to oppose your agenda. Then you rule over them and make sure to keep them weak and defeated otherwise they will switch tables on you. (Examples: Bismarcks' original Kulturkampf reversing to Weimer reversing to Nazis, Argentina's dirty war) 2) Devolution: decentralize even more and reduce power of Federal government (Examples: Lebanon. Switzerland) 3) Divorce: split into two different nations entirely. (Examples: Ethiopia/Eritrea split, Yugoslavia breakup) The reason why is that this is ultimately a religious war about values. People will die rather than give up their religion or change their core values. That means that if their core values are diametrically opposed, then will rather die than stop doing what the other side is convinced is immoral. This brings us to my favorite trilemma: a) diversity (of values) b) liberty c) a strong central government Pick two. Historically nations dealt with diversity of core beliefs by Federalism, e.g. letting one province be Catholic and the other Protestant and they just leave each other alone, with a central government that only takes action if both sides agree. But that's a very fragile arrangement prone to civil war -- e.g. Lebanon -- when there is a demographic shift that upsets the balance of power. The left, also, would not accept if, say, America split into a red and blue nation with the Red nation say not respecting gay rights or emitting lots of carbon. Blue America would invade them as they have a crusading vision that is global and totalizing. Personally, I favor devolution (best) or a national breakup (second best). Obviously I do not favor domination. But most people I know, and everyone I know on the left, favors domination. The right must be defeated. But it's easy for me to emigrate to a nation which is much more sane than the U.S., so I have less at stake than those stuck in America.

ff317 5y ago
I mostly agree with your analysis, but while Devolution sounds good on paper at an abstract distance, the reality of it is going to be (and is) a lot messier. The problem is that we don't have just Red-vs-Blue states in the US. We also have Red-vs-Blue subregions and counties within most (all?) states, and even within a nominally Red or Blue county, city, or town, you'll almost universally find a a sizable sub-population of the opposite bent. So, to pick an example hot-button issue: Abortion Rights. If the feds decentralize this issue and let states find their own paths, you'd have ample abortion rights in the blue states and virtually no abortion rights in red states. But many of these nominally red or blue states are really, say, a 70/30 or 60/40 split by population, and so a large (but non-majority) population of each state is now living under laws they despise, which is not going to make for good long-term outcomes. Over a long-enough time period, I suppose many would choose to move to other states and physically polarize the nation by-state, which is then going to make it easier and more natural to eventually Divorce the two sides as separate nations, and then they will almost surely have wars in the future over turf, politics, etc. But in the shorter term, most people don't have the freedom to just move states on a whim because of political change: they have families and friend networks, they have jobs to consider, financial and social costs of uprooting and moving, etc. It's still a relatively-rare privilege, among the whole US population, to be in a situation where you can easily move states as you feel like it on a political whim. You could also imagine a path where Devolution just gets more-fine-grained - the Feds leave more to the states, the states leave more to the counties, they leave more to the cities, etc. This would allow things to differ at a much more local level. All over the country, you might find a flip of the abortion laws every 20-30 miles traveling down the highway. This reduces the costs and challenges for the individual - now they can more-easily move a short distance for a set of laws they find palatable, or simply drive across legal lines for various services/purposes. However, I think having such a large menu of divisive and important legal issues vary at such a low level would lead to a lot of chaos and friction. You'd lose a lot of the advantages of being a relatively-homogeneous country. Imagine doing business in such a country and having to pay far more attention to the more-significant legal differences in every jurisdiction. It sounds like a mess! My current (perhaps naive!) opinion is that you can't fix this in an effective way through Devolution or Divorce - the costs are too high. I think this needs to be fixed at the per-human level: we need to become less-polarized as individuals, and elect less-polarized politicians as well. We need to learn to disagree without being disagreeable again, and to understand where each other is coming from. We used to have that (well, to a much larger degree than we do now) decades ago. I don't think Facebook alone created this mess, but tech is certainly playing a significant role in amplifying the problem rather than solving it. You have to reach a point where everyone can have conversations with all of their neighbors of the form "I disagree with your stance on X, but I can see why you think that way, and I want to explore where we have common ground and find a compromise solution that can make both of us reasonably happy to live alongside each other", or your society is doomed to eventually be a failed one. Being "right" on an issue is not as important as being good neighbors to each other and respecting others' views. Perhaps your particularly strong view of a certain issue will eventually prove itself to be universally acceptable/accepted (in the sense that eventually in some future year, an overwhelming majority of the population will agree with you instead of say, just the 35% that are in your political subcamp). However, you're not going to get there by going to war with the other 65% and demeaning and degrading them. You're going to get there by being understanding enough to have healthy relationships with them, and then perhaps minds can change more-naturally (and it may take a generation or two for some changes, but it's the only non-violent way to get there). You have to do this even if you don't think the other side is doing it, or even capable. It's the only way to have hope for a better future.