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 -
I had a post on last week's topic where I suggested that the civil war would be takers vs makers, and I got asked how I would tell them apart.
This is how. You see those people building shit? Makers. You see those people complaining and trying to prevent them from doing so? Trying to get handouts and secured employment and concessions? Takers.
Regulations and taxes are the tools of the takers, wielded against the makers.
While I think "civil war" isn't the right lens through which to examine most divisions (can you imagine all the boomers fighting all the millennials, somehow?), I think you might be interested in Ilforte's two-by-two matrix of left/right, build/retreat, as a lens.
More options
Context Copy link
If there is a civil war, it will be some approximation of Red vs Blue. California is not going to align with Texas, Civil War style, against a coalition of Taker states.
It might start out that way, but major ‘maker’ states are better served in the short run carving out their own little empires in the hinterlands, so it’ll turn into 3-5 dueling imperial cores.
Of course I don’t seriously think that there’s about to be a second civil war. But if there is, Texas, California, etc would be strongly incentivized to preserve their own citizenry’s standard of living(remember, these are democracies where one party always wins by being good at convincing the public they’re responsive to local needs) in the face of wartime hyperinflation and shortages by transitioning into micro-empire builders, and that’s a recipe for a shift to realpolitik.
More options
Context Copy link
If there's a civil war, the battle lines aren't going to fall along neat ideological lines and a lot will depend on which military units stationed wherever will side with whichever side. If you look at the Spanish Civil War battle lines (with the caveat that they moved a lot, of course) and compare them with the preceeding election, there are parts where the Nationalist/Republican territories match the left/right election map and parts where they don't.
Hence the qualifier "some approximation of". The vast majority of Reds will end up on one side, the vast majority of Blues will end up on the other side, and exceptions to that will be exceptions rather than the rule.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have to disagree.
The steelman for regulation is keeping people from trampling the commons. Even if they Make something by doing so, they’re Taking it from everyone. It’s possible to Make something with zero or negative value to everyone else.
For taxation, it’s solving a coordination problem to do things enough people would like done. You can get a net positive out of Taking.
More options
Context Copy link
Your mistake is thinking these are different groups of people instead of the same people at different times of day.
Then we should encourage people when they act like makers and punish people when they act like takers.
Unfortunately, democracy means you get to vote to take money from your neighbor's pocket, and most people are willing to choose that option.
More options
Context Copy link
It's still a useful distinction, even if not everyone is 100% maker or taker.
I don't think that it is - at least not in a political sense. Conceptually it's an easy distinction to make, but in practice it's just arguing over whose subsidies and legal privileges don't count.
More options
Context Copy link
But not (if taken seriously) a politically productive one given that the vast majority of the population are takers from birth to the early 20's, makers during their working life, and takers in retirement.
Given the number of right-populists who try to use maker/taker framing, it is very easy to have fun with the fact that makers voted for remain and takers voted leave, but in fact that just reflects the generational divide in British politics.
That once was the vast majority of America, but it's closer to a bare majority today, and the share is shrinking. There have been policy and especially immigration decisions which have caused this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure but NIMBYism is a near uniquely bad litmus test for Maker/Taker. By that test in a lot of cases you'll get answers like "Tech CEO is a TAKER because he doesn't want his beach town to have a new low end high rise hotel put up" or "Union Carpenters are TAKERS because they want Union labor on Gov subsidized work."
Most NIMBYs are, or at least were, successful employed people who want to "protect" the lifestyle they feel their work entitled them to.
Most tests suffer similarly, unless you're ready to bite the an-cap bullet at least a few times.
NIMBYism is unusual because it is important enough to be politically unavoidable but doesn't align with any of the other obvious dividing lines in American politics. The fact that it isn't a federal question helps - in the UK it is enough of a national issue that the logic of partisanship eventually forced politics into a "YIMBY Labout NIMBY Tories" alignment.
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