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 -
Its funny, I'm an elder millennial, so I can remember a childhood without phones (and, barely, one without computers or internet), so I actually balk from blaming 'the phones' in the abstract. I was able to adapt from the old nokias to the slick flipphones to several different form factors for 'smartphones' and I think this gave me a practical view of the phone as a tool for organizing IRL activities and keeping in touch with distant friends. That's what we used it for originally.
BUT, I work with 20-21 year old Zoomers, and holy COW they treat their phones like an inseparable appendage, and you can catch them doomscrolling constantly. I can SEE that growing up with this influence leads to a qualitatively different relationship to/dependence on the gadget, which could be source of the other observable problems. Oh, and now they're used to having a semi-reliable AI assistant in their pocket at all times, so now they can use this machine to do a lot of their literal thinking.
And now there's been a couple decades of engineering and testing to optimize the apps for taking your money and sucking up your attention and otherwise making you dependent on various digital services that we previously lived without.
Tiktok being banned won't solve much, there are 50 other apps ready to jump in and replace it, but maybe, just maybe someone will produce reliable research to measure the impact of these apps and finally get towards some policy proposals aimed at cutting out the most harmful elements while retaining the benefits. I can dream, right?
Seen this issue a lot. You can't build a community without a core of dedicated people constantly showing up and doing the work to put together events, and that core of people will get frustrated and burn out or give up if there's too much turnover in membership or members are extremely flaky and unreliable. So hard to even get one off the ground.
My martial arts gym, which HAS an extremely dedicated core tries to hold social events every so often, with plenty of advance notice, and it still a crapshoot as to who will show up outside of that core group.
I've spent the past two years holding regular social gatherings at my house, which is cheap, low-pressure, and I can control the environment to 'guarantee' a pleasant experience. Wrangling adults to hang out together is HARD. Some can't find a babysitter, this one's busy with work or school, that one's just tired and wants to go to bed at 9. So you invite people on the assumption that there'll be a number of last minute dropouts.
Everyone has like 15 different commitments going on at any one time, so getting them to TRULY prioritize a commitment to one group over the other is nigh-impossible. And this also seems to have shifted how humans value individual relationships. There's billions of humans you can potential interact with, and if you aren't satisfied with the ones in your circle of friends, discarding them for new ones is easy. Even if you can't find local friends, your phone offers the potential to make 'infinite' friends! Parasocial relationships! You can spend all day chatting with an AI version of Hitler or Tony the Tiger if it strikes your fancy! Why value real-life relationships at all?
This becomes especially stark on the dating apps. Human connection is immensely devalued.
As somebody whose preferred method of making friends is to identify good people and then forge a deep, long-lasting bond with them (my best friend, whom I still talk to regularly, has been in my life since Kindergarden, literally 30 years), this world of ephemeral connections where people flit in and out of your life on a whim is a bit of a waking nightmare.
I can say for myself, I used to attend the soup kitchens, food pantries, and service to shut-in elderly folks to mow their lawns and such. It was fulfilling in its way.
But what I concluded is that this was basically burning up the manhours of competent people to provide modest benefits to people who simply aren't able to produce value on their own. It is literally more efficient to donate money to some professional org that will pay to provide these services than for me to go out and spend hours on a weekend mowing a lawn myself, and I could do something more enjoyable, to boot. I guess I was engaging in prototype effective altruist logic.
But I do think that engaging in activities that constantly expose you to the 'dregs' of humanity, and seeing that no matter how much money and effort is poured into these folks, at best you're basically just raising their standard of living by 2-3% temporarily, not dragging them permanently out of destitution and fixing the problems that put them there. If you're not a certain type of person, the futility of it probably burns you out. I even tried volunteering at a dog shelter, but that burned me out EVEN QUICKER because holy cow the problem of stray and abandoned dogs is intractable, and there will never be enough funds to shelter all those poor animals, just the few that we can locate, rehabilitate, and get adopted. Volunteering your time for such a sisysphean endeavor seems irrational unless you honestly do have a deep and abiding love for animals. Which some do.
Now, I'm not denying that engaging in acts of service is enriching, and exposing yourself to that side of humanity probably makes you a better-informed person. But its also easy to do it just for the virtue-signal points.
That might be another part of the equation. Sympathy for strangers seems to be on the wane, and this has pushed us ever deeper into our chosen ingroups, and built up a wall of suspicion against all outsiders who might want to forge a connection with us.
I'm a few years older than you, but beyond the internet, I think the problem started with cell phones. First, because they enable much easier communication, and second, because they became status symbols. While ease of communication seems like a good thing, it has the unfortunate side effect of making it easier to flake. If I call you tonight and we make plans to do something right after work tomorrow, unless you change your mind within the next few hours, you're pretty much stuck. Obviously, if there's some kind of emergency you could call me at work or at the place where we're supposed to meet, but that's intrusive and inconvenient (especially if you have to find the phone number of a business without the convenience of the internet), reserved for situations where you truly can't make it. These days, if it's getting late in the day tomorrow and you feel too tired to do anything, you can always just send me a text cancelling. I'm always available, and you don't even have to talk to me directly.
I'm as guilty of this as anyone, but it also makes it much easier to be late for things. If I have the kind of appointment like a job interview or court appearance where it's imperative that I be on time, I'm almost never late unless I make a fundamental miscalculation or there are unforseen circumstances. But if the engagement is merely social or recreational, I'm horrible at it, not because of unforseen circumstances, but because of inertia. After all, if I say I'm going to meet friends to ski at 9 am and I'm running a half hour late, I'll just text them to start without me and I'll call to see where they're at when I'm ready. In the old days, they'd have to wait around for me in the parking lot, not knowing where I was, and they couldn't go on ahead of me because I'd have no way of finding them once I got there. Being late meant either getting them pissed off waiting or running the risk of being ditched for the day.
Whether or not this is a net negative is hard to say. People flaking is annoying but it's nowhere near as bad as people having medical emergencies and no way to call an ambulance. Hell, it's probably better than the old days when people would have to cancel for legitimate reasons but had no way of contacting you and just stood you up. It's better than being stuck at home waiting for a call, or needing to get in touch with someone who isn't home at the time. As much as people complain about people being slaves to their phones now, it was worse in the old days. If you were at home and your phone rang, you basically had to answer it. Sure, you could screen calls through your answering machine, but this was inconvenient, and the idea of doing this for every call, all the time, was absurd. So you basically had to answer the phone, and the person on the other end could be anybody, wanting to talk about anything.
To get back to the social aspect, say I'm having people over this Friday night and I'm calling friends to invite them. These days you'd send a text. The recipients can see the group text, check their schedules, and respond at their convenience. If they don't really want to commit but want to keep it as a contingency, they can wait a few days to see if anything better comes up before responding. In the old days, you'd call your friends, and they'd have to give an answer immediately. "I don't know" was an acceptable response, but one only given in the event that there was some legitimate contingency involved that prevented you from committing in the here and now but wasn't certain enough to entirely preclude your attendance. And giving such a response required you to take the additional step of calling the host back at a later date to give a firm answer.
Which brings me to my second point, about phones being status symbols. This, admittedly, isn't that much of a problem, but it ties into everything else. Cell phones were always status symbols, but originally they were status symbols of a different type. Owning a cell phone before about 1995 meant that you had a very important job where people always needed to be able to reach you and it was worth paying ridiculously high fees for this capability. Then the cost of the phones and the basic subscription came down enough that normal people could afford to have them, but the per-minute charges were expensive enough that most of these were only used for emergencies or other situations where they were the only option. Landlines still ruled the roost for everyday conversations.
Then, in the early 2000s, changes were made to the business model that made teenagers actually want to own them as opposed to having them so they could call their parents for a ride. First, plans became available that came with a certain number of minutes that could be used during the day, and unlimited minutes on nights and weekends. Eventually, unlimited talk became the standard. Now, they could be used for casual conversation without your parents getting a huge bill. Second, texting became available, quickly gaining market share for low-priority communications that weren't worth interrupting somebody over. If I called for the specific point of telling you that the Penguins' goaltending looked especially shitty tonight (and not as an entree to a longer conversation), you'd be annoyed. If I texted the same you wouldn't care. The ability to have short, inane conversations (in an era with a telephonic keypad) didn't appeal much to adults, but kids loved it.
And with more kids having cell phones, marketers realized there was room for improvement of the phones themselves. Progress in cell phone design was initially centered around making them more compact. Now it was about making them more stylish. This is where Apple really knocked it out of the park. The Blackberry had existed for years, and provided much of the same functionality as smartphones would. But they were only appealing to people who actually needed the functionality. Nobody bought a Blackberry as a status symbol, and people who needed them for work didn't seem to like using them (one friend of mine who bought one for work purposes was thrilled when her job started paying for a work phone because she could now carry a normal phone for personal use). The iPhone had improved functionality, for sure, but it was a status symbol more than anything.
This only gets truer as time goes on. The first iPhone was a huge leap forward, but subsequent iterations have been less revolutionary than the improvements to the flip phones before them. Every couple years we'd at least get a new, useful feature, like a camera, or a full keyboard. Smartphone improvements are basically limited to incremental improvements of technology that already existed in flip phones or the first generation of smartphones. Faster processor, better camera, waterproof, etc. But new iPhones don't really do anything that the originals didn't, and that statement is even less true when comparing the current generation to the previous. (The biggest selling point of the iPhone 16 is that it has native AI capability, which sounds good until you consider that any phone with access to the internet has AI capability, just not on the phone itself. I don't know who this is supposed to appeal to.)
Nonetheless, there are people who want this thing. Every time a new iPhone comes out, there's a line out the door at the Apple Store of people who can't even wait a couple of weeks. Contrast this to the 90s. Phones were appliances. My parents had the same wall phone hanging in the kitchen throughout my entire childhood and most of my adulthood. You only got a new phone if the old one broke or, rarely, if there was some game-changing feature like a cordless handset or touch-tone dialing that you wanted. The idea of getting a new phone every two years was like the idea of getting a new dryer every two years.
The importance of this to the current phenomenon relates back to the first reason. Even though phones seem more central to our lives now, they are actually less central than they were 30 years ago. Like I said, if the phone rang, chances are you answered it, even though you probably had no idea who it was or what the call was about. If you made plans over the phone, you were stuck with them, unless you went to great lengths. If an important call came and you weren't home, you were out of luck. Our entire lives revolved around telephones and having access to telephones, but nobody really noticed or cared. They were as exciting as vacuum cleaners. Now they're as sexy as ever even though the core functionality hasn't improved since the introduction of texting. Once the average person was liberated from the noose of the telephone, that should have been the end of it, and progress should have stopped. The smartphone's integration of communication equipment with a portable, but unimprovably limited, personal computer, should have been the last improvement anybody cared about. But here we are, 15 years later, and people are even more concerned now than they were then.
Yeah, I think your whole first section makes sense when you include the whole "devaluation of relationships" aspect.
THAT'S the part that makes it so easy to be flaky. If you truly value the relationship with your friends, you make an effort to be at the event as planned, because even if its easy to cancel last minute, you know that this will eventually lose you status points (you'd lose more in the older days where people would be stuck waiting for you and get pissed) and people will stop inviting you at all, eventually leaving you out of everything.
This is bad if its hard to find new friends OR there aren't many things to do by yourself. But guess what? You can make friends online! You can pay an Onlyfans girl to talk to you while you sit at home! You can watch a streamer and PRETEND he's your friend!
If you REALLY fuck up and gain a bad reputation throughout your town, its relatively easy to move to a new town and make new friends quickly.
I have to imagine that 'ghosting' dates was simply NOT a common practice before dating apps, for similar reasons. You really needed to keep your appointments because the pool of potential dates was relatively small and so if you offended too many you might be locked out of dating altogether. Instead, of course, you ghost one match because you can always go back to swiping with zero penalty.
So now it is easier to be flakey without wrecking your social status, AND its easier to move on if you do wreck the status.
And that flips over to your arguments that phones are now status symbols. Which man, I hadn't thought deeply on that and there's something to unpack there.
For me, I place an insanely high value on maintaining relationships, so I have inbuilt incentive to honor my commitments once made, and I thus hate hate hate feeling like my personal relationships have been devalued. But the world is how it is. I just put in the effort to maintain the friendships I really care about.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Jonathan Haidt is trying. But he’s getting the entire academy screaming at him for it. There’s certain forces deeply invested in ensuring teens stay addicted to their phones, and to my eyes it appears to be leftists primarily who desire to keep the status quo, who will try to argue you that it’s “alarmist” to be concerned at all about the massive societal rot and atomization occurring all around you. Phone addiction is politics addiction and a massive opportunity for political brainwashing of young impressionable kids. It’s done wonders for their movement. The moment people stop being addicted to their phones is the moment the trans movement and other adjacent movements wither and die. So it’s not just capital set against you - it’s woke capital.
You seriously think social media is making teens more liberal? That sites known for right-wing QAnon conspiracy rabbit holes are somehow increasing support for trans rights?
The media has been talking about how surprisingly conservative Gen Z is (that is, the people young enough for social media / smartphones to be a major part of their teenage years but old enough to actually be 18+ for a survey). Wikipedia references social media as an influence making them more conservative.
Sorry but there’s no way you can convince me that Tumblr or Communist controlled TikTok are making kids more conservative. If they are more conservative (dubious) it’s due to other forces, the media can freak out that they haven’t completely turned every kid into democratic socialists all they want
More options
Context Copy link
Social media is a mixed bag politically but it’s hard to argue with it being a major driver of increasing social liberalism in our society. I mean it does go both ways, but trans is more spread through social media than trad- most people know how their grandparents lived(even if they really don’t) and can see the appeal of that lifestyle if they squint.
More options
Context Copy link
I assume there’s more than one filter bubble at play. Twenty years ago MSNBC and Fox watchers were already getting two completely different spins. Now they can be siloed even within a single website. Boomer Facebook is not Zoomer Facebook, let alone Reddit or Livejournal.
I’d say the OP is overselling it. He’s ascribing way too much coherence and agency to “their movement.” This is something that’s followed organically from unprecedented access to information.
Look at it this way. Before the spread of printing, you might never have thought about contemporary religious schisms. Before the Internet, it was possible to go your entire life without ever being asked about preferred pronouns. As we grow more connected, we are asked to take sides on any number of previously invisible issues. These crystallize along existing fault lines with convenient labels like “personal liberty” or “traditional values.” Then the usual tribalism kicks in and the facts themselves melt into the background.
More options
Context Copy link
Look up Redit from 10 years ago and tell me if it got more or less liberal.
There's certainly liberal content on most (if not all) social media websites. But the impact of their algorithms is almost universally to push users in the direction of right-wing content. Reddit's algorithms are theoretically transparent (i.e. officially what is highlighted is controlled by the votes of real people but there's regular claims of fake accounts being used to mess with the vote counts), so it may be one of the ones least affected by this.
But also, the nature of social media being a customized feed for every user means that it's very difficult to judge how liberal the median (or whatever) view of a site is. From my perspective, Tumblr is very woke, but I somewhat often see discussions of the conservative views being espoused elsewhere on the site.
10-ish years ago Reddit collectively bullied Ellen Pao out of being the CEO. Today anything mildly non-progressive gets dowvoted, removed, and the user gets banned. Twitter from a decade ago was also uncomparably more friendly towards right-wing thought than it is even now, after Elon bought it.
It is also very disputable whether the algorithms move people to the right (or to the left for that matter), rather than towards an establishment-friendly worldview within one's political wing
More options
Context Copy link
The algorithms give you more of what you like to engage with, so perhaps either everyone likes right wing content (doubtful) or you’re wrong about what the algorithms are doing
Almost every platform manipulates the algorithm to steer it's users towards what the company wants, rather than what the users want organically.
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
Reasonable hypothesis.
It gels with my general model that scared/anxious citizens are more conformist and easier to sway by simply telling them what to be afraid of and how they can alleviate their anxiety by voting the 'right' way come election time. It failed to produce the desired outcome in 2024 but there are plenty of folks who still think we're about to collapse into a fascist dictatorship.
Phone use and anxiety and similar disorders is very strongly correlated in the research, so that's one way to 'produce' your loyal voters.
Is it? My understanding is that the correlations are fairly weak but that there may be methodological limitations
Yeah. I should have specified that the strong correlation is found among the young, not the older groups.
https://www.psychiatrist.com/news/chronic-smartphone-use-linked-to-teen-anxiety-depression-and-insomnia/
https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/teenagers-problematic-smartphone-use-are-twice-likely-have-anxiety
Note this study where anxiety disorders among adolescents are generally decreasing over decades in the 'developing' world (smartphones less common!) and INCREASING in developed countries:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11002340/
Yes but my understanding is that adolescent mental health is only declining in anglophone countries not western countries generally
Also an interesting side note is that black teen suicide rates have for the first time outpaced white suicide rates
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
For about four years now, my thing has been trivia night. It helps that I enjoy it, so I’m almost always there. It’s super low-pressure, and I don’t have to overthink it. Meet a couple at a coffee shop who seem cool? No need to try setting something up, “I’m at the same place the same time every week. If you want to hang out, that’s where I’ll be.” You work through the chaff and start finding a core group of consistent people. Really this is what church was but that's just too much for most people to bite off.
Another key, though, is that if you want to develop a social circle, oneself has to show up when others put on events.
I think this is one thing people don't realize. With all the discussion about "third places" in recent years, it's almost like the writers complaining about them are essentially asking for bars without admitting they want bars. I'm a member of a local VFW post. I go several times a week. I don't go because I like drinking, I go because I like the people. If you're a regular at a bar, you know you can show up any time and you're friends will be there. Not all of your friends, but at least some of them. It's the ultimate low commitment social life, because there's never any obligation or expectation to show up, but it's always there if you want to do it. And if you just want to sit there and read or look at your phone, you can do that, too, because, even if you know everybody else in the bar, you didn't specifically go there to meet them specifically, so there's no obligation to entertain them.
For all this lack of obligation, though, it only really works if you commit to it; you have to go there often enough that everybody knows your name for it to have that kind of effect. If you only go a few times a year, you won't know anybody well enough for it to be worth it. The only time you can really get away from this is if you slowly back off after having gone regularly for years, at which point you can do the minimum to keep in touch. So when writers complain about the lack of some amorphous "third space" that I imagine they picture being like a college student union, I wonder if they realize that they don't work unless enough people are committed. Is there going to be a critical mass of people who show up several times a week solely out of routine to make it attractive for a stranger to want to join the community? What's the default activity? Bars have pool tables, dart boards, trivia nights, etc., but most people default to sitting around the bar bullshitting.
More options
Context Copy link
Whoah now buddy, that could turn me into some kind of... extrovert?
More seriously, the type of friends I make tend to be introverted nerds so generally speaking they don't like planning and holding events, so I do most of the heavy lifting there. But when somebody is putting in the effort to coordinate something, be it trivia or just hanging out at a park and tossing a frisbee, I want to recognize that effort and show up for it.
I'll be honest, its a good way to sort high agency people from low agency ones. The sort who actually plan events and put out the word and do the legwork to 'make things happen' are generally high functioning and reliable, which is a signal correlated with other good traits, generally. That is the signal I'm trying to send.
In my experience, planning tends to go a lot smoother if it's the kind of event where your own personal attendance isn't contingent on other people showing up. If I'm trying to get a group together to ride bikes, and I make it clear that it's a group ride, if I don't get sufficient interest then the few people who are interested will probably drop out as well, if only because of a perception that we need some kind of critical mass. If I simply say that I'm going and if anyone wants to join they're welcome to, then it seems clear from the beginning that it wasn't intended as a big group blowout and if only one other person is interested they won't feel weird about showing up, and in turn pressure on the group isn't as much so more people will show up overall.
Yeah its almost paradoxical. On one end, if there is extremely high pressure to attend/not flake then attendance seems to be more reliable (maybe there's a nonrefundable charge of some kind or some other major cost for not attending). Or its an extremely desirable event that isn't repeated often, like a popular band's concert or similar.
On the other end, if its lowkey, minimal cost, and you just invite as many as possible and don't really put much pressure on attendance then you also get pretty decent turnout (although oftentimes people will happily arrive 'late' or leave 'early.'
Its the middle zone, where you invite people to an event with a CLEAR expectation that they will show up if they agree to, and where the main 'cost' of flaking is losing social points, and you put in at least a medium amount of effort to following up with people/'securing' commitments to come where people are most likely to cancel on the day of. Probably a combination of feeling pressured to accept at the time they're being asked, and then 'deciding' later that its really not that serious and cancelling.
There's also a particular dynamic with females. I specifically try to have mixed-gender gatherings (part of my goal is to get people of opposite sex to form connections and maybe create dates and relationships), but with females in particular, they tend to only want to come if they can 'know' that other females will be there. And if they aren't coordinating directly with other females but instead through me, the organizer, there's an information asymetry. If I tell them "oh yeah plenty of women are coming" how much do they trust my word? So last minute flakes are probably the rule there.
And the end result seems to be that usually NO (single) females attend an informal event unless there is some other major enticement. Some girls will attend with their boyfriend, and sometimes a lone female shows up and ends up being the only female there and hangs around somewhat awkwardly then leaves early, unless someone manages to engage her in a friendly conversation and puts her at ease. I've gotten decent at that.
The trick I've tried lately to some success is to try to invite two females at the same time (i.e. approach both simultaneously so they can both see/hear the other accept the invitation). And likewise if I have a female friend that I'm sure is coming I ask her to follow up with/confirm other females attending. It feels like an interesting game, trying to lure a woman who is extremely skittish about going to events with unfamiliar people out long enough to gain her trust.
I'm sure there are more secrets to getting women to attend but its a very consistent pattern at this point.
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