site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   29457 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 26, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I walk everywhere I can, and have gotten by without owning a car for the last several years. In the last four years, I've lived in both a spread-out suburb and a denser, quasi-urban area. In my experience as a dedicated pedestrian, the majority of motorists I encounter are very deferential and mindful, stopping when they don't need to or waiting much longer than is required at a stop sign when I am approaching a crossing in order to let me through. Almost every cyclist I encounter is the exact opposite, refusing to slow or turn for anyone. It's on you to get out of the way or have the cyclist shoot you a death glare for not showing them sufficient deference. They are a massive hazard and nuisance on the sidewalks. Part of that, I'm sure, is due to lack of dedicated biking lanes, but I think cyclists have a cultural problem that makes them extremely unlikable, and not just to motorists.

My flaky pet theory is that society and culture has simply become worse over the past few decades. Maybe it's social media, maybe it's phones, maybe it's the endless war on terror, I don't know. But something changed, and now everyone is angry, frustrated, distracted, and short-tempered. They're all looking for someone smaller and weaker to inflict violence on, and "the streets" are a place you can get away with it. So you've got guys in oversized pickups driving aggressively against the normal cars, who then attack the cyclists, who attack the pedestrians. And even pedestrians will harass people in wheelchairs or with canes.

Interestingly, I did not experience that in Japan. Even in the places with no cycling infrastructure, or even sidewalks, everyone is nice and respectful and shares the road. Drivers will actually make eye contact with you and let you pass, instead of trying to push you out of the way. You see a lot of women riding bikes with a small child in the back, no helmet, no fear, and it all just runs smoothly. It's amazing. (though admittedly kind of slow)

There might be a cultural dimension but a big part of it is that slowing to a stop and restarting is actually a significant inconvenience to a biker in a way that it's not to a driver since it requires a large expenditure of your personal physical energy.

That sounds like a convincing argument against allowing bikes as vehicles on city streets.

Rather, city streets shouldn't be built for cars. There is no real reason why people should be drivng in cities except for delivery vehicles and workers transporting tools. Streets should be built in a way that is adjusted to people and how people use the streets, not cars.

Even if enacted, this wouldn't solve the issue.

First of all, it is intentionally wasteful. Once a road that can accommodate a delivery vehicle or pickup truck is constructed for their purposes, why shouldn't I be able to use it to go visit my cousin? Are we supposed to let this resource go unused 99% of the time?

Second of all, it doesn't fix the problem that people don't live in a line. I know there is that Dubai city idea. Great for them. Most of the time transit is totally useless to get to anywhere you want to go other than, perhaps, an urban core.

Third, it doesnt solve capacity. Carrying grocery bags is heavy. Bike or walk.

Many problems. All solved by the humble automobile.

Once a road that can accommodate a delivery vehicle or pickup truck is constructed for their purposes, why shouldn't I be able to use it to go visit my cousin? Are we supposed to let this resource go unused 99% of the time?

It will be used by pedestrians, of course.

Then how will the delivery truck utilize the road effectively?

I don't see the problem. There are multiple layers of roads in the city:

  • highways that let you drive at 120km/h, allow all motor vehicles and avoid residential areas
  • arterial roads that let you drive at 60km/h and allow heavy motor vehicles only with permits
  • residential streets that let you drive at 30km/h
  • pedestrian streets that allow only emergency vehicles and small delivery trucks

So the delivery truck will progressively slow down until it reaches the shop, unload the goods and then progressively speed up until it reaches the warehouse.

This seems like it would increase the cost of goods significantly compared to the current system. Places like Amazon already face significant last step of delivery costs. Doing so for every supplier to a grocery store? That will make Biden's inflation look like childs play.

More comments

The usual suggestion seems to be only allowing trucks to deliver at night. This has the added benefit of keeping the peons who take deliveries out of sight and mind. And of course keeping us off public transit that only runs during the day.

Once a road that can accommodate a delivery vehicle or pickup truck is constructed for their purposes, why shouldn't I be able to use it to go visit my cousin?

A huge difference between a low throughput street and a high throughput street. This street can accomodate deliveries. This street is made for mass transportation The first street has far, far more people on it, takes less space and is much less demanding in terms of resources. Also the people in the second photo are likely fatter.

Second of all, it doesn't fix the problem that people don't live in a line.

Which is why many trips require a connection. A bus or subway is far more efficient at moving people than cars. They also require less space and make the city less hostile to cycling and walking. This reduces the distances and the need for travel.

Why would we even contemplate comparing those two pictures? One is urban and one is not.

Which is why many trips require a connection. Yes, which is why public transit doesn't work in practice as a substitute good for private cars. It has to be imposed on people through poverty or draconian regulation. Yes some cities make it mostly work even for the more moderately wealthy, but they are the exception. Lets, take, for example, London. Webley Stadium to Tottenham Stadium is 20-30 minutes by car and 75-105 minutes by transit.

Streets should be built in a way that is adjusted to people and how people use the streets, not cars.

This bit of linguistic gamesmanship is ridiculous: cars don't use anything. It's all just people out there. Anti-auto advocates ought to find a less saccharine and grating slogan.

I don't want to spend an an extra hour (actually 0:58 by Google Maps) getting to work every day. Do you have a way to resolve that issue, or will I just have to deal with it if you have your way?

Why is a city designed so that people spend 8 hours in a bed and 8 hours behind a desk and these two places are an hour apart? The issue with cars is that they create the need for transportation. Things get spread out making the car necessary. The issue isn't transporting people great distances, the issue is creating a city in which people don't have to commute long distances. Cars counteract that goal.

I really, really don't want to live in a dense urban region. The urban decay near me is ridiculous and completely intolerable. I need to do right by my kid and the city schools are jokes. At least most of them. I can easily shop around for a neighborhood with a great school district and send my kid to an even better private school in the suburbs. My suburban cup runs over on schooling and housing options in a way it doesn't within city limits.

So as a basic matter of self preservation I live far from the city. Well, an easy drive by car actually. But really quite far by public transportation; so my family is shielded from the worst of it. Comparatively few home and car break ins around here.

In existing car-centric cities, how many houses are within car-commuting range of a given workplace? In proposed walking cities, how many?

If you drop that number too low, then people will have to relocate to find work, even if it is just relocating across the city. I'm not sure if that's any better than commuting.

In proposed walking cities, how many?

what you mean by walkable city here? I seen anything described this way, from "total private car use ban" to "maybe have sidewalks at least on some roads"

And I would not look at proposed ones but at what exists already

"walkable city" is not specific enough

I was vague on purpose. I was aiming at whatever accomplishes "...a city in which people don't have to commute long distances."

would you take a trade where the city builds a lot more freeways where you can drive 60+, in exchange for having to go 20 or less on all regular city streets? That seems like the obvious trade to me. Otherwise it's just really difficult to share a street with cars going 40, and it's really difficult for cars not to go at, what feels to them a slow speed.

Sure. Given the areas my commute goes through, it would speed things up for me. I suspect it would help everyone else as well.

That's pretty much what I see as the best solution, given our current tech and culture. I just don't think it's possible for current-year Americans to really "share the road" with each other. Instead we've got this awkward compromise where most streets are frustratingly slow for cars and dangerously fast for anyone else.

I think this line of argument gets into the issue that a lot of people driving cars in cities (probably the vast majority) do so because they are employed in the city yet live in the suburbs dozens of miles away. Which is kind of an intractable problem unless capping the density of commercial real estate (or ratio of commercial to residential) is on the table.

That's what park and rides are for. Everyone parks at the outside of an urban core. Then walk, commute, bike into the urban core.

Which is nice until your car is stolen. There’s a nice little train to a neighboring city I want to take my kids on, but theft at the parking lot for it is too high, so we drive an hour instead.

If we're fantasizing about remaking the fabric of urban America we can fantasize about effective law enforcement.

Order of operations is important in discussions like this. If you are a bicycle urban enthusiast, you should be 100x a police enthusiast. In fact, the idea of posting about bikes shouldn't even cross your mind until you get called a racist and a classicist hundreds of thousands of times because of your Draconian (by today's standards) policing proposals.

If not, you are unserious.

More comments

I guess?

My main experience of an American city with respectable public transport is Chicago. On the one hand, I took the metra and L a lot, and mostly liked them. On the other hand, locals had very strong opinions and advice about where it was and wasn't safe to bike/walk/park/stop at stop signs, which effects functionality a fair bit. I ended up parking at a relative's private apartment garage because he wasn't using it, but it was kind of a fluke that was was an option.

I empathize. America's urban problems need to be addressed whole sale. Generally, a large parking lot is easy to secure. A few cameras + security and you're set.

Thing is, I have absolutely no confidence the crime problem will ever be dealt with, and so all of my views on urban and transport policy are shaped by my desire to do everything possible to insulate myself from the failures of urban policy. My ideal is actually much more public transit, but only if it’s clean, safe, and efficient.

I don’t like cycling, but I’m more than warm to making more opportunities for people to cycle if they wish.

Issue is, in America the people who like reduced-car transport and the people who like tackling crime are almost entirely separate circles. Convince the Democrats to tackle urban crime, then we can have discussions about tackling car culture. Until then, I will continue resisting attempts to restrict the freedom and safety afforded to me by my automobile as an attempt to expose me to risks to life and property, and respond accordingly.

The war isn’t between you and me, but between you and the one-party states that rule America’s cities.

More comments

People (in most of the US anyway) use the streets by driving cars in them.

What if people use the the streets by driving cars on them?

Walking, cycling, kids playing, outdoor cafés, selling stuff, meeting place.

You're entirely correct but ... aren't large expenditures of your personal physical energy half the point of biking? If you're on a bike because you can't afford a car, I'm totally sympathetic to you wanting to add as few calories you can to your grocery bill in the process, but at least for myself the biggest advantage of biking to work (because "work" meant "typing stuff", not ∫F·ds) was to build up some of the muscle and burn off some of the fat that would during the rest of the day be wasting away and accumulating respectively. I suspect I was more the rule than the exception for cyclists in the USA.

My only point is that it's apples and oranges to compare drivers vs. bikers being deferential to pedestrians, because it's nearly costless for the drivers.

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