site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   30157 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.

Food shortages in the US. Lovely. I do have an economist friend who was annoyed with this. I suggest him and his buddies look into making estimates about how many people will starve to death given different food pricing laws.

Of course people like free money, but the free money leads to the inflation that leads to the calls for price controls. The price controls lead to shortages. The shortages lead to government takeovers, or onerous regulation that forces private entities out of business. Its happened before in a dozen different leftist/socialist/communist countries. It would be nice to not repeat the cycle here.

I mostly have hope in the legal structure and republican opposition stopping the craziest parts of this slide into a leftist dystopia. Of course they have to spend political effort and will to stop these things, and while they are busy stopping things from getting worse things certainly aren't going to get better.

I mostly have hope in the legal structure and republican opposition stopping the craziest parts of this slide into a leftist dystopia. Of course they have to spend political effort and will to stop these things, and while they are busy stopping things from getting worse things certainly aren't going to get better.

26% chance of a dem trifecta following this election. Let's hope Sheehy pulls through in Montana.

Things don't necessarily get solidified in law for a few years.

There is also the phenomenom where politicians will propose policies A, B, and C. Where C is the most unreasonable and controversial. The opposition will exhaust themselves arguing against C, and the politicians will just drop it after they have accomplished A and B.

I see the grocery anti-gouging laws as the "C" in the this Kamala policy list.

Even so, that just makes C the new A in the next round.

It does

The US has a federal structure in which red state governors benefit politically from undermining or preventing the exercise of federal power when a democrat is in the white house, and almost all non-luxury crops are red state production.

There might be localized shortages, but not on a national level.

A localized shortage is more than enough to cause a riot in this day and age. The riot and looting will then make the situation worse.

You'd start seeing cases of state level emergencies being declared in cities as they run out of food, everyone rushes the stores for what's left, and then suddenly nothing is left.

Most nations outside of third world countries have learned not to mess too heavily with grocery prices.

Sure, you can have local riots. But middle class people will generally be able to drive to the next town over for their grocery run, even if it results in a more basic diet at higher cost. The US is too wealthy for mass food shortages.

Never underestimate the ability of government regulations to ruin a functioning market. We have an ongoing housing shortage, many rich western countries have to wait months for medical care, and finding a rental unit in a rent controlled city can be impossible.

Middle class people won't be the problem. It will be poor lower class people that are stuck in "food deserts" that lack personal and public transportation.

The US is too wealthy for mass food shortages.

Price controls are a way of taking that statement as a challenge.

A localized shortage is more than enough to cause a riot in this day and age.

There were no riots over infant formula shortages in 2022. If Harris gives us Soviet-style supermarkets, we'll just stand on the lines and hope like good Communists.

That impacts less than three percent of households. And notably does not impact young teenage men who are most likely to participate in riots.

Apples and oranges

Infant formula shortages also by definition affected parents of young children, who have a lot to lose and aren’t exactly known for their riotous ways. I can imagine a food shortage that affected society more broadly being the cause of genuine unrest, especially if it’s perceived as directly being caused by the powers that be.

if it’s perceived as directly being caused by the powers that be.

I doubt it would be so perceived in a Harris/Walz government. I suspect the mainstream media would loudly proclaim that the causes are corporate greed and republican obstructionism in congress.

I suspect the mainstream media would loudly proclaim that the causes are corporate greed and republican obstructionism in congress.

Yep, in other words the powers that be. Obama being president didn’t stop riots related to police shootings. All that needs to happen for a riot to break out is for the potential rioters to perceive that the unstoppable powers that be caused their problems. And in your hypothetical, the media has gladly provided such an explanation: “corporate greed and republican obstructionism in congress!”

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