7 ms·

> There's a reason it's called a Culture War and not a Culture Mild Disagreement. Culture war at this point is more than a decade old. It did not start with Pr

> There's a reason it's called a Culture War and not a Culture Mild Disagreement. Culture war at this point is more than a decade old. It did not start with Project 2025. It started on the Internet. Also, GP said people do not change all that much morally. That much is true. Organizations change fast. Societies change slower. The acted on rules are a combination of three, but it's important to be aware of the distinctions and the dynamics.

cmrdporcupine 2y ago
Frankly, the culture war started in earnest in the late 60s.
- freeopinion 2y ago
  So you weren't around for the 20s? The last 20s?
  - cmrdporcupine 2y ago
    As old as I am, I wasn't here for the 60s either, though both would have been a total blast
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
camgunz 2y ago
Eh I remember the culture wars from the 90s [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war#:~:text=1991%E2%80%932001%3A%20Rise%20in%20prominence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war#:~:text=1991%E2%80...
davedx 2y ago
I'm not sure that makes sense to me; how do society's moral rules change (slowly) but peoples' moral rules don't/change little? I mean I can think of some isolated examples like pirating video content, but generally a society's moral rules reflect its constituents; where else do those rules come from, if not its people?
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Culture. Humans have pretty stable moral intuitions about the basics - fairness, reciprocity, value of life; AFAIK they're consistent throughout time and space as far as history goes[0], and form a common base from which more complex morality stems. In short: "theft is bad" is something people are born with[1]; "pirating media is bad" isn't; the former will be universal wherever you go, the latter depends strongly on who you ask[2]; the former is constant throughout history, the latter can change within months or years. On a more general point, human society is the poster child of "the whole is more than the sum of its parts" - there's a lot of ideas and institutions in our lives that are purely abstract, and exist only in the shared, social sphere. Things like money, rule of law, countries or corporations - they exist as long as people expect them to exist, but ultimately they can disappear overnight - unlike the more fundamental concepts like self-preservation or reciprocity, which are anchored in our selves. -- [0] - If it weren't, we would have much more trouble understanding or relating to the past; the saying is that the past is a foreign country, not that it's an alien species! [1] - Or at least it's as close to innate as we can get. [2] - And, of course, the progress of science and technologies that made this question meaningful in the first place.
  - alabastervlog 2y ago
    My experience is there's also a fundamentally inborn notion of "fair price" and "fair pay" that people are born with, that they have to be educated out of to operate successfully in the modern economy. It's one way in which our system is kinda anti-human—it assumes a kind of game-playing that's seen as wrong by people, naturally, and you have to play that game or you can't succeed. "What the market will bear" doesn't feel fair to people until they're made to see it as fair.
    - nradov 2y ago
      Price is just a symptom or manifestation. People naturally see it as unfair to take advantage of someone based on a power imbalance or information asymmetry. So charging an excessive price or paying a starvation wage is just one way to take advantage, but there are other non-monetary ways as well. Attempts to impose "fair" price or wage controls by legislative fiat or cultural norms are doomed to fail because they don't resolve the underlying cause.

cmrdporcupine 2y ago

Frankly, the culture war started in earnest in the late 60s.

freeopinion 2y ago
So you weren't around for the 20s? The last 20s?
- cmrdporcupine 2y ago
  As old as I am, I wasn't here for the 60s either, though both would have been a total blast

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

camgunz 2y ago

Eh I remember the culture wars from the 90s [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war#:~:text=1991%E2%80%932001%3A%20Rise%20in%20prominence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war#:~:text=1991%E2%80...

davedx 2y ago

I'm not sure that makes sense to me; how do society's moral rules change (slowly) but peoples' moral rules don't/change little? I mean I can think of some isolated examples like pirating video content, but generally a society's moral rules reflect its constituents; where else do those rules come from, if not its people?

TeMPOraL 2y ago
Culture. Humans have pretty stable moral intuitions about the basics - fairness, reciprocity, value of life; AFAIK they're consistent throughout time and space as far as history goes[0], and form a common base from which more complex morality stems. In short: "theft is bad" is something people are born with[1]; "pirating media is bad" isn't; the former will be universal wherever you go, the latter depends strongly on who you ask[2]; the former is constant throughout history, the latter can change within months or years. On a more general point, human society is the poster child of "the whole is more than the sum of its parts" - there's a lot of ideas and institutions in our lives that are purely abstract, and exist only in the shared, social sphere. Things like money, rule of law, countries or corporations - they exist as long as people expect them to exist, but ultimately they can disappear overnight - unlike the more fundamental concepts like self-preservation or reciprocity, which are anchored in our selves. -- [0] - If it weren't, we would have much more trouble understanding or relating to the past; the saying is that the past is a foreign country, not that it's an alien species! [1] - Or at least it's as close to innate as we can get. [2] - And, of course, the progress of science and technologies that made this question meaningful in the first place.
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  My experience is there's also a fundamentally inborn notion of "fair price" and "fair pay" that people are born with, that they have to be educated out of to operate successfully in the modern economy. It's one way in which our system is kinda anti-human—it assumes a kind of game-playing that's seen as wrong by people, naturally, and you have to play that game or you can't succeed. "What the market will bear" doesn't feel fair to people until they're made to see it as fair.
  - nradov 2y ago
    Price is just a symptom or manifestation. People naturally see it as unfair to take advantage of someone based on a power imbalance or information asymmetry. So charging an excessive price or paying a starvation wage is just one way to take advantage, but there are other non-monetary ways as well. Attempts to impose "fair" price or wage controls by legislative fiat or cultural norms are doomed to fail because they don't resolve the underlying cause.