site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   29425 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 19, 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.

The valuation questions become legion. One method people suggested to solve these issues is simply that any value the taxpayer asserts is a value the taxpayer is obligated to accept if a third party asks to buy. Basically each year you set the option price for your company. Maybe the option only stays open for say a month.

But that’s ridiculous per se since there could obviously be liquidity reasons that forces a founder to have a lowish value in their non public shares. But now due to liquidity they give a free option to competitors to buy their interest for 80 cents on the dollars.

I guess if it was a really low percentage, like how the Swiss do property taxes, there may be some sense you could make of this, and it would actually be some incentive to make companies public, which would reinforce the power of the PMC and create a whole bunch of sinecures in the IRS.

But at the rates proposed here it's just straight up confiscation.

Even the famed 79% tax bracket that only applied to Rockefeller was on revenue income, not just straight up stealing from him because he has too much.

Yes, governments engaged in the most destructive war that has ever been do tend to straight up take everything from people. I agree, FDR was basically Mussolini.

He straight up proved you wrong and this is your response? How about a little grace and humility?

I don't respect people who go to WW2 to make arguments about peace time tax policy. Because it's transparently dishonest.

Especially when they accuse me of using the non central fallacy a few seconds before.

Sounds like a cautionary tale with relevance to the instant case, no? Camel, nose, tent, yada yada...

And no one actually paid these famously high tax rates either. There were a million and one loopholes that were closed under Reagan.

When Reagan reduced the headline tax rate (70% under Carter!), he closed the loopholes at the same time. As a result, tax revenues as a percent of GDP stayed level. The wealthy were no longer able to use their preferred tax shelters. Tax avoiders paid more. People who didn't try to game the system paid less. The result was a much fairer system for everyone.

Anyone who tries to use past headline tax rates as an argument simply doesn't understand the reality of the pre-Reagan code, which was inferior in every way. Only suckers or fools ever paid 70%.

It didn’t apply to revenue but income. Revenue would not be an income tax and therefore would be required to be apportioned amongst the states.

Yeah that's what I meant, it's the same word in French which always trips me up.

What's the word for revenue in French, then?

Both income and revenue are revenu, the latter being a loan word from Old French in the first place that means return, comeback.

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