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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I really don't see how this is the case. Long-term democratic cities are notorious for having draconian planning regulations. When I lived in SF, I couldn't even add an internal door inside my own house as a noise barrier without applying for a variance. And the criminal worship on team blue is just out of control. The number one issue in the way of restoring cities is that people, and especially people with children, just don't feel safe.
The cities need a committed reformist movement, probably within the Democratic party, since their policies have shut out people with children who vote Republican from living in urban areas. But on the national level, it's hard to see how the better option is the party of BLM, leading with a candidate who endorsed the riots.
I'm sure there are a ton of exceptions and caveats, but this is the rough shape of things in my mind: If you're concerned about building more, then the two major parties may have opposite effects depending on whether you're talking about the local level or higher levels. Locally, conservatives who favor less regulation and more individual freedom will tend to lead toward allowing more building. But we also have a problem of most municipal governments already being overly restrictive with their zoning codes and regulations, and progressives seem to be more willing to use power at the state and national levels to incentivize/force municipal governments to allow more building.
Progressive implementation of the policies will not be as advertised however. You wont get new housing in the city or near the urban core, instead you will get subsidized housing foisted onto suburbs that are being made to heel ala the NJ Mt. Laurel doctrine (see Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Mount Laurel Township ). This pattern has been repeatedly seen in progressive states. The goal of such policies is to make the city itself expensive and rich and less violent while foisting the worst of it on people who explicitly moved away from the violence, thus ending those communities repeat as people flee.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link