site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   25741 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 25, 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 don't quite understand why the Jones act failed, I'll admit. It seems like there should have sprang up in response lots of American owned short haul freighters.

I guess what I'm saying is, is the root causes of the Jones act failing one of those things that can be addressed?

What /u/gillitrut said, but also the interstate system in the US is pretty good and it turns out to be cheaper[1] in a lot of cases to put stuff on a truck.

[1] Cheaper than a Jones Act vessel, more expensive than a notional free-market vessel.

It turns out that it's cheaper to hire whatever vessel to do a journey like domestic port -> international port -> domestic port than it is to hire (or build) a Jones Act vessel to do domestic port -> domestic port.

That would be cabotage and is illegal under the jones act. Fortunately goods are fungible and we can just import a foreign produced equivalent of whatever we just exported.

I have the belief that there is a limited amount of ambition and engineering expertise per capita that ultimately caps the technology level. I think a bunch of industrial tech levels have only been maintained by the ascendancy of China. No ambition or real engineering talent has been directed towards building ships in the US since the 1940s.

So basically we have a bunch of people focused on the world of bits instead of atoms?

China still can't build a jet engine the way CFM, P&W, GE or Rolls can.

Generally, yes. There are areas where America does do well enough at physical manufacturing to be an exporter. Weapons, medical devices, cars, planes, etc.

But why can't we own ships that were built in China or Japan or Germany or wherever? The USA has money and shipping companies.

On top of being American built, the ships must also be crewed by Americans.

The Jones Act requires the ships be built in the United States.

What is the actual definition of 'built in the United States'? Does it actually prohibit towing in a ship from a Chinese or Japanese shipyard and installing the transponder in LA or wherever and calling it 'American Made'?

Yes, Zvi's post links to an article that discusses it some. There's a certain (large) percentage of the ships parts that have to be fabricated in America. It also discusses a court case where a shipping company tried to buy a pre-fab "ship kit" from South Korea and just assemble it in America. A court ruled that was not Jones Act compliant.

There are detailed and specific rules. Their way around it usually involves assembling a kit of stuff made in other countries.

Apparently, the law does not provide a definition, so the Coast Guard's regulations control.

To be considered built in the United States a vessel must meet both of the following criteria:

(a) All major components of its hull and superstructure are fabricated in the United States; and

(b) The vessel is assembled entirely in the United States.

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