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 -
Yes, this is a point Arnade makes in the book as well. (I've had personal experience with, dealing with Social Security, welfare offices, Medicaid, etc, and I find it hard enough as a high-IQ "front row" type myself.) My mother works for our public library, in the branch in the poorest part of town. They get plenty of people coming in to use the computers to get online (because they lack internet access at home), and some portion of those people are doing so to seek various forms of governmental assistance. The library stafd are aware of this because said people often end up coming to them for help with trying to navigate the various application processes, and such (help which the librarians are unable to provide).
Unfortunately — and here's where I once again turn back to Weber — it is in the basic nature of modernity to replace organic, human-run institutions like these with bureaucratized ones. And, as you note, the reach of such private organizations is rather less than uniform. Much of the resistance comes from the sorts who rate "equality" high in their priority of values, and who decry the "unfairness" involved. If the primary source of help for, say, the disabled are the local churches, then what about disabled non-Christians? Disabled atheists?
Plus, local charity requires local people able to afford to be charitable. I've been thinking about Alaska's economy quite often, and why it's so terrible. The job market is lousy because few are hiring, because few can afford to hire people, because there's not enough business, because few can afford the goods and services the business provides, because too many are poor and lacking jobs…
"Rideshare, food delivery, etc." all require enough of a customer base able to afford them. It's hard to compete in "online marketplaces" when the shipping costs are higher (as are the raw materials for whatever good you're producing, for the same reason). Plus, you're competing with illegal immigrant labor, or with overseas sweatshops and the like.
I remember asking a question here in one of the Sunday threads about the economic viability of Auron MacIntyre's 'have your state resist federal control (or your county refuse federal and state control) on culture-war issues by refusing federal funds and using local institutions in their place — tell your people "you don't need the welfare state, the churches will provide."' And I recall that most concluded it's simply not economically viable for any but the richest locales (all of which are pretty much on the same side as the federal institutions in the culture war), and especially non-viable for "rust belt" areas (or other, similarly-impoverished areas like Alaska).
I mean, I agree with your sentiments here, I'm just not sure we can make it actually work as things are now.
More options
Context Copy link