site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   30112 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 12, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This will be very difficult, for two major reasons:

  1. Government operates based on rules, while private entities operate based on performance. Your boss can fire you if you're ineffective. The government can only fire you if you don't follow the rules. It's easy to follow the rules and still be ineffective. So government relies on constructing the right rules to achieve its ends, and we don't even agree on the ends, much less the specific rules. The rules end up being byzantine tomes of regulations that no one understands. So there's tons of intractable inefficiency that cannot be addressed. Musk would have to somehow make government employment contingent on performance rather than rules.
  2. More importantly, efficiency requires making costs and benefits explicit and commensurable so tradeoffs can be made. People hate making money commensurable with lives, happiness, or other sacred values. Even conservatives use terms like "death panels" when this topic comes up. Any cost-cutting that comes at the expense of a few hours at the end of a few peoples' lives, or of the academic success of a few economically disadvantaged children, is going to be raised as a fatal flaw in the whole endeavor, regardless of how many billions of dollars were saved. Musk would need to sidestep this issue somehow.

My best idea for solving #2 is to give people a choice to accept a payment to forgo a government benefit. For example, instead of government-dictated healthcare provided by your employer, you're allowed to opt out in return for $X, where $X is less than the average cost of the healthcare plan. This of course is distasteful to supporters of government healthcare, because they want the costs to be socialized. Adverse selection will cause people who are healthy to opt out etc. The same adverse selection follows for other kinds of government benefits, such as education with school vouchers. In the limit, the people remaining receiving benefits would be precisely those who take out more than they put in, and this would highlight the cost everyone is paying to support those people. The existing system obfuscates who is causing the high costs.

Doesn’t Germany allow individuals to opt out of public pensions(but not back in)?

For example, instead of government-dictated healthcare provided by your employer, you're allowed to opt out in return for $X, where $X is less than the average cost of the healthcare plan.

The problem with that is that people will take the money, spend it, and then we'll see a parade of sad little kids on CNN whose parents can't afford medical treatment, and then the government will have to either pay for the medical treatment anyway (encouraging people to take advantage and raising the costs), or they'll have to go on CNN and publicly declare "fuck the kids", which they won't.

You could, trivially, cover basic healthcare for all the children in the country and waive everything else. I think Harris county's gold card system works a bit like this- hospitals will always be reimbursed for the health care they aren't allowed to deny+basic preventative, and it saves money in the big picture view.

I think this is the root of the problem in a nutshell.

In a modern society, very few people - even reactionary conservatives - are truly comfortably with the idea of stupid people dying in the streets. To be clear, I'm not talking about drug addicts, career criminals, etc. I mean otherwise law abiding citizens who just suck with money. We all probably have at least one friend or relative who is an all around good person, but just awful at managing money. I don't think that person should end up so destitute that "dying from exposure" is a real risk. This same logic is why most societies decided to eliminate the debtors prisons.

But if there's some sort of guarantee - explicity in the case of social security, but implicit in a future even without defined benefits - that you won't starve simply because you're a moron, people will continue to be morons.

I think our debt and deficit realities are too large to get out of with austerity. "The only way out is through" meaning we need a new generation level of growth to happen. This won't be AI automating laptop jobs. It really has to be something like (forgive the buzzword) a second industrial revolution. There's also a necessary energy component and the really enraging fact there is that we know what that is - nuclear. There is a literal Green Cult out there, however, that is dedicated to preventing the human species from solving nearly all of its energy challenges.

Human nature can't be mitigated with crafty policy. That is one of the central tenets of classic conservatism and one of the horrible, awful traps that Liberals keep falling into.

We all probably have at least one friend or relative who is an all around good person, but just awful at managing money. I don't think that person should end up so destitute that "dying from exposure" is a real risk.

They aren't. And outside of soviet republics, true shitholes or countries undergoing historic catastrophes, nobody fitting that description ever was. Dying from exposure in the middle of the street takes multiple levels of failure, requires burning every safety net there is one by one. Just failing at money is not enough - friends and family are still there. Unless someone lost and/or alienated all of them, which is even more massive a failure than going bankrupt.

But that's just a nitpick; I'm not disputing your larger point.

We all probably have at least one friend or relative who is an all around good person, but just awful at managing money. I don't think that person should end up so destitute that "dying from exposure" is a real risk.

You can let them die of exposure, you can control their life for them, or you can shovel in-principal-unlimited amounts of money at them. No other choices.

Limiting this today is that there is one large group for whom dying from exposure or controlling is considered OK, which is adult men.

I agree. Deaths of Despair for white males and intragroup murder for black and latino is the slow motion mechanism for societal realignment. We can pretend otherwise for a few generations but, eventually, gravity catches up.

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