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 wouldn't put too much stock into environmental impact statements. Their methodology for predicting traffic is often suspect; for instance, the draft EIS for the I-5 project between Portland and Vancouver, WA expects the same number of cars per direction on the I-5 bridge whether or not the bridge is expanded.
You could not delete buses from every city in the USA without noticing a difference in congestion. See this study about a 2003 LA transit strike, which saw average highway delays increase by 47%. Then consider that LA has a much lower transit mode share than some other US cities.
You're right that transit isn't a good tool to reduce congestion. (At least, I think you're right; I'd have to do more research to be sure.) That's because road space is almost always provided free of charge. It's rational for drivers to fill up the free road space until traffic delays make it too inconvenient, and if transit siphons off some of those drivers, other drivers will fill in the gap.
But the purpose of transit isn't just to increase accessibility for non-drivers. It can also convert drivers into non-drivers, and it can enable drivers to forgo driving when parking is too expensive or traffic is too bad. (E.g. going downtown, going to sports games and concerts, or going to the airport.)
More options
Context Copy link