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 -
If we're entering this politically impossible situation where @ArjinFerman gets these powers, it's fairly easy. Does he want to reverse the sexual revolution, as a random example? Illegalize over-the-counter contraceptives and abortion clinics. Mandate >90% male:female ratio in colleges and technical schools. Remove mandatory maternity leave and allow discrimination against female hires. End no fault divorce. Lower welfare benefits for single people (Edit: Perhaps this falls under 'economy', so nix this.) Done and dusted.
The CRA is a fairly modest law that radically reshaped American culture over time. With a literal culture czar, you could steer the country at least that effectively.
But will the people accept that? When I say there's no easy levers, I'm thinking about how hard it would be to enforce some of these things in practice.
The US struggles to stop illegal drugs from coming over the border from Mexico. How would we stop oral arbortifacients and condoms from coming over the Southern border? How would we stop women from making intellectual salons for teaching college and technical topics - and stop employers from letting these qualified women work for them? How would we stop women from poisoning husbands they can't divorce?
I'm not saying it's absolutely impossible to be brutal and efficient here, but I'm not actually sure the state capacity to do all of this actually exists.
LOL. With the full power of the culture (and a not-insubstantial portion of law) pushing women into technical subjects, engineering and computer science remains skewed 4:1 male. Take that away, and you will be able to maintain 9:1 ratios with no problem at all.
I'm not talking about STEM. I'm talking about all of college and technical/trade schools.
If the people want to resist your lawful efforts to change the culture, how do you stop women and sympathetic men from creating university alternatives where women are trained in a field and then hired even without a degree? Like, how do you actually put the genie back in the bottle here?
How do you stop people from creating samizdat, and passing down trades within their familes and a dozen other things that people who remember the old regime will want to do?
Umm, how many of the women in non-STEM college majors are there to study and how many of them are taking a vacation for four years? It certainly seems like very high percentages of the latter.
Of course the real problem is that for non-underclass women, there is no alternative to a college degree. You don’t see female plumbers and cops and infantrymen and the most reliable route to being a housewife is… through college.
More options
Context Copy link
The idea of society organizing bottom-up in such a manner, on a scale that is any kind of threat, is kind of dubious to start with. The way universities work and what they teach has lots of detractors too nowadays, they even have dedicated alternatives, but none of it adds up to anything.
More options
Context Copy link
STEM education is difficult and people who are doing it are too busy to teach it; this also applies to trades, and they have other requirements anyway.
As the jobs become less technical, the advantage yielded by those who could train their children is correspondingly diminished.
Market forces. Because the credential spiral is mostly fake, and there's nothing of significance that separates a worker with an Arts degree from one that only graduated high school, this will impose a ceiling on the price of labor for those with a fake degree.
As far as "training in a field and then hired without a degree", this is another way to state that they're receiving the level of education that much more closely matches the demands of the job; this is better for the students, and it's better for the part of society that isn't employed in academia. It's a good thing that academia did not spend 50 years agitating for a destruction of wages for those without degrees or anything like that, or they could be in real trouble.
Trades are already captured by licensing boards and apprenticeship requirements. Some of what they teach is fake, but not to anywhere near the same degree as academia in general, and you get paid which offsets some of the cost.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link