site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   31379 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 30, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Nope, it's because we've developed a ton of advanced technology and it's doing a lot of weird things at the same time!

You don't think deliberate efforts to reduce the population entered into it?

No, because those deliberate efforts are aimed at the third world. Only a handful of political radicals- disproportionately the kind of environmentalists that don’t get invited to cool parties- want to reduce middle class first world birthrates.

I don't think you are right because anti-natalist propaganda is all over GAE media aimed at middle classes.

No, because those deliberate efforts are aimed at the third world. Only a handful of political radicals- disproportionately the kind of environmentalists that don’t get invited to cool parties- want to reduce middle class first world birthrates.

Well, isn't that because the efforts to crash non-third-world fertility rates have already been successful?

Well, kind of. East Asia really did see fertility control programs that are probably part of the story for the regions anomalously low fertility.

In white countries, economic factors and Vatican II(seriously, the delta between Catholic and nonCatholic TFR in the fifties was wild in a lot of these places) were the main reasons and nobody really pushed population control except accidentally(the idea behind teen pregnancy prevention programs was that these girls would have kids in their twenties instead). India and Africa saw the brunt of deliberate- and often coercive- population control programs outside of the one child policy(which, again, was a pretty big deal).

Would you classify "deliberate efforts to promote values that compete with populationmaxxing" as "deliberate efforts to reduce the population"?

Only when people with these values have a history of advocating for eugenics and population control, never really repudiated those views, and see concern over fertility as some sort of Nazi dog whistle.

Are you talking about specific people who have advocated for all that in their lifetime, or about "those people" as a set that spans 100+ years of discourse? In my observation it's gonna be hard to find someone who both hates Nazis and approves eugenics nowadays.

As for Nazi dog whistles, when it appears that the ones most vocally concerned about fertility also have some kind of white ethnonationalist views (when people are concerned about black/black-adjacent fertility it seems to be more along the lines of "they're more fertile than us"), what is one supposed to believe?

(when people are concerned about black/black-adjacent fertility it seems to be more along the lines of "they're more fertile than us")

As I've pointed out many times- attempts to reduce African fertility, and third world fertility more generally- is very establishment-linked progressive NGO coded. Bill Gates has been notable for his efforts in such matters.

Are you talking about specific people who have advocated for all that in their lifetime, or about "those people" as a set that spans 100+ years of discourse?

Yeah I am talking about specific people, all the way from Malthus to Ehrlich, and many, many, people in-between.

In my observation it's gonna be hard to find someone who both hates Nazis and approves eugenics nowadays.

As for Nazi dog whistles, when it appears that the ones most vocally concerned about fertility also have some kind of white ethnonationalist views, what is one supposed to believe?

By the same logic, I will answer your question: when it appears that the ones most vocally concerned about "women's liberation" are implementing policies that increase the fertility of the most rich, and drop that of others, what is one supposed to believe?

(when people are concerned about black/black-adjacent fertility it seems to be more along the lines of "they're more fertile than us")

Interesting crowd you're hanging out with. What I'm hearing is more to the tune of "abortion is literal black genocide". Would you be ok if I called your support for abortion a Nazi dog whistle?

Governments that have put a lot of effort into trying to increase the population, such as modern Russia's government, have not seen much success, so I doubt that the low modern fertility rates have much to do with governments trying to lower fertility rates. I think that fertility rates are just something that governments, even relatively authoritarian governments, do not have much control over. For a government to significantly influence fertility rates it would have to either make sweeping economic and cultural changes somehow, and/or go totalitarian beyond the degree to which even the current Chinese government is totalitarian.

Governments that have put a lot of effort into trying to increase the population, such as modern Russia's government, have not seen much success

A lot of effort by Russia's government: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Xlf2G0O_VY0&t=87

Their latest idea was: Russians don't have enough space to raise kids. Not very original thought, but okay.

  • Russians don't buy enough houses because we only allow mortgages for apartments. Let's allow mortgages for houses.
  • Russians still don't buy enough houses because the interest rates are too high. Let's subsidize their mortgages for new houses so their interest rate is below the key rate.
  • Russians can't buy houses because there aren't enough SFH developers. Let's wait for the invisible hand to solve this.
  • Russians started buying houses, but the prices have tripled because there still aren't enough SFH developers and not enough construction materials. Let's wait for the invisible hand to solve this some more.
  • Russians stopped buying houses with cash because at these prices only subsidized mortgages make sense. Let's wait for the invisible hand to solve this again
  • Oops, we've run out of cash to subsidize new mortgages. Let's stop handing out new subsidized mortgages.
  • Oops, Russians stopped buying new houses altogether because they won't pay 3x the price and 20% interest.
  • Oops, the real estate development market has crashed.
  • Oops, the wave of bankruptcies means that fewer new houses are being built than when we started.
  • Oops, some Russians are stuck paying mortgages for unfinished houses while their existing property is the collateral. Good luck solving that problem in court.

How about a new idea? Let's introduce escrow accounts so that real estate developers can't run away with all your money! Oh, wait, someone has snuck in a clause that this applies only to prefabs, so 95% of the market is not covered.

Governments that have put a lot of effort into trying to increase the population, such as modern Russia's government, have not seen much success, so I doubt that the low modern fertility rates have much to do with governments trying to lower fertility rates.

I don't see how it follows from there, that the resulting reduction in population growth was not deliberate.

I think that fertility rates are just something that governments, even relatively authoritarian governments,

True, it isn't just a matter of government policy, but that doesn't mean the reduction in fertility wasn't premeditated, and implemented from the top.

I don't think that's a huge component, no. Many countries are now trying to reverse it and failing, and countries that've tried to lower it in the past (china?) don't seem to be doing much worse than comparable ones that didn't (other east asians). What specific such efforts do you think are relevant?

Many countries are now trying to reverse it and failing

How does one measure's failure disprove the other measure's success? Especially since the measure that worked is still in effect, and is still being promoted - it's not like "countries" have total control over what's going on inside them, and are free from outside (and inside) influences.

and countries that've tried to lower it in the past (china?) don't seem to be doing much worse than comparable ones that didn't (other east asians).

Same question, as above.

What specific such efforts do you think are relevant?

Getting women to join the workforce, attempting to close the wage gap when they have (even though it primarily comes from men picking more lucrative careers and devoting themselves to work relatively more), and the denigration of motherhood in mass media, and all status-granting institutions.

Ok I think that was a combination of changes brought on directly by technology (women always did a large amount of critical labor within the household, farming or making clothes or similar, cleaning, physically maintaining the household, and as technology automated that having them work made sense) and changes brought on for direct political, eg progressive, reasons which in turn was enabled by technology. I believe little of that had the explicit aim of lowering the birth rate. There was, of course, the overpopulation panic, but I think the impact of that was very small compared to the global trend of progressivism and technology!

There was, of course, the overpopulation panic, but I think the impact of that was very small compared to the global trend of progressivism and technology!

I don't get it. That is my entire argument - this is exactly how the measures to reduce the population are being implemented to begin with! "Progressivism" is being introduced through deliberate centralized efforts, and "overpopulation panic" has been it's feature for over a hundred years. Why are we assuming that this is just some magical "global trend" appearing out of nowhere, rather than it being an expression of these deliberate efforts?

Why are we assuming that this is just some magical "global trend" appearing out of nowhere

Because it isn't a 'magic global trend that appeared out of nowhere', it's a central political/moral/philosophical development of modern history, something that basically all politicians, intellectuals, philosophers have been debating for the past few hundred years? You can read historical progressives and talk to existing progressives, and they're much more concerned about stuff like freeing women from domination than they are overpopulation.

it's a central political/moral/philosophical development of modern history

And where do central developments of modern history come from, are they by any chance deliberately implemented?

and they're much more concerned about stuff like freeing women from domination than they are overpopulation.

I mean, it's only so long you can twirl mustaches and laughing like a me monocled villain, without people noticing. Also the reaction to fertility concern belies them supposedly not caring about it.

And where do central developments of modern history come from, are they by any chance deliberately implemented?

I honestly do not understand how one can have this perspective while also having read, like, multiple wikipedia articles or a single book. It indicates what appears to me to be a complete misunderstanding of history? Like, are you implying that the reason liberalism and progressivism exist is that it's a ploy by the elites to reduce the global population? I don't get it.

I mean, it's only so long you can twirl mustaches and laughing like a me monocled villain, without people noticing.

Yeah real life isn't a movie where the villains are indicated to the audience with artistic foreshadowing.

Also the reaction to fertility concern belies them supposedly not caring about it.

This is the same bad logic as "the conservative reaction to concerns about structural racism proves they're actually racist nazis". In politics, people on all sides have a lot of insane reactions to a lot of things, often without particularly deep philosophical reasons.

I honestly do not understand how one can have this perspective while also having read, like, multiple wikipedia articles or a single book

Uh... which wikipedia article (interesting argument, by the way) conclusively proves central developments of history aren't deliberately implemented?

I don't get it.

Yeah, because you're used to not having to spell out the core assumptions of your arguments. I'd like you to actually do that.

Yeah real life isn't a movie where the villains are indicated to the audience with artistic foreshadowing.

Well, but speaking of listening of actual, historical, progressives, they did kinda sound like mustache-twirling villains.

This is the same bad logic as "the conservative reaction to concerns about structural racism proves they're actually racist nazis".

Step me through it. If I react negatively against, say, "let's make abortion easily accessible", I think it's reasonable to conclude that I am against making abortion easily accessible. When I react negatively to the concept of structural racism, it's reasonable to conclude I disagree with the validity of the concept of structural racism (or at least the way it's applied to the current society). When do racist Nazis enter into it? Likewise, when I react negatively to "hey, let's find a way to keep fertility rates from crashing", I think it's reasonable to conclude I don't want to keep fertility rates from crashing. I don't see any flaw in the logic of my argument, only in the example you gave.

More comments

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