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 -
Reducing obesity is a goal, not a policy. Obama focused on reducing obesity. Didn't achieve much. What is the Trump administration and the GOP going to do? What policies that are both effective and palatable to a) Republican voters b) Republican elites do you expect them to pursue
Tax sugar (or Ozempic4All, if you're feeling pro-injection and like free healthcare). Invest in public transit and rework urban planning (15min cities are back, baby) so people drive less (fewer car accidents) and have more active lives (-obesity, +basically every other aspect of human health).
Of course, these are already ballot box poison (and that's before we even try to do anything about suicide, where massive social engineering might be more politically viable than restricting access to guns). Which points back to what I was originally saying: low American life expectancy is revealed preference re: lifestyle. Policies to address these issues have been floated repeatedly and outside of a few locations they've been shot down.
(Not a clue, re: drugs. There's some proximate interventions you can do to reduce OD deaths, but that's just nibbling around the edges of the problem)
Can you be more specific? Which establishment figures, which policies?
Sidebar: I would note that the stereotypically very liberal states like CA and NY have the highest life expectancy; the worst states are in the ultraconservative Deep South. Again, I don't think this is really about policy (cf. Idaho, which is also extremely conservative), except perhaps insofar as state governments could spend money on ameliorating the consequences of Southerners' unusually unhealthy lifestyles but don't (generally with the support of their electorate).
Well I'm pleased to inform you that the world did not start three years ago, nor did America's durable problems with drug use and violent crime, nor its unusually harsh sentencing practices. The US has mass incarceration. It, rather notoriously, has more prisoners per capita than almost anywhere on Earth, including actual totalitarian regimes. It doesn't seem to have had the desired effect. Unless you can do something about the processes that produce new criminals, the problem isn't going to go away just by throwing more and more people in prison.
I'm 100% with you. But first, we need the DOGE man to come and fix government.
Too many people think that dollars = progress. This is obviously false. California has spent on the order of $100 billion on high speed rail and has nothing to show for it. If we had the efficiency of Spain or China we could do stuff. Unfortunately we are hamstrung by a corrupt and incompetent government.
Until that is fixed, we could spend infinite dollars and get nothing for it.
So I assume that you agree with me that the best way to get car-free cities is to start by gutting the corrupt people who are preventing public money from being utilized.
Yes, rich people who benefit from our economic system have better life outcomes. How can we help disadvantaged people get the same thing? I don't think standard liberal politics have the answer. Look at Philly, DC, and Chicago.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link