site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   38814 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 15, 2024

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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This also extends to student loans. While I still have antipathy for people that absolutely can grasp what they're signing, it's just obvious that many people really don't understand what they're signing up for and don't understand the basics of financing.

I've been trying to help someone figure out their student loan situation through the latest round of presidential office attempts to put various plans in place, and it just comes across as gambling at this point. We're both about as smart as the average non-technical collage graduate. First a bunch of people were saying to consolidate, because (reasons that I found rather obscure having to do with an executive order?). So they did that, but then the numbers fluctuated wildly for a while, and they got a bill for more than they've ever owed in their life. So they tried submitting some paperwork, which was ignored for a few weeks. Then they tried calling, and the person said they would put it on hold while the paperwork was processed, which might take three months or so, they weren't really sure. Meanwhile, there seems to be a bunch of law fare going on between the president's office and (states? banks? state created financial entities?). It doesn't seem so much like people are stupid, as that the system is wildly unstable, leading to a student loan decisions as gambling situation.

I have a general rule that I do not make big changes regarding financial situations or anything else that are predicated on assumptions about future political or legal actions.

For example, there is a fairly common strategy of converting IRAs and 401ks which are pretax (meaning that you have not yet paid taxes on them but will need to do so upon withdrawal) into Roth IRAs and 401ks (which will be tax-free upon withdrawal). To do this you need to pay taxes today to attempt to save taxes in the future; as such it is basically a bet on your tax rate today vs. at retirement. However the hidden assumption is that Roth vehicles will never be taxed, and I put the odds of that at much lower than 100%. We're going to need to get that UBI money from someone.

That being said I didn't think I'd ever sniff Social Security and I now have <20 years max left (pending changes to retirement age). But I have found that eking out small +EV in life tends to be dwarfed by variance. At the poker table sure, but not when dealing with the vicissitudes of fate.

I've always felt similar about Australia's Superannuation system. There's definitely ways of deriving a tax advantage, but as a 29 year old now I'm not super confident in the withdrawal ages and sanctity of the product for the next half-century.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats