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 often feel like people get the system they deserve. That the system is a product of the people, and trying to change a system’s rules on its own can only have marginal effect. We have a low trust, somewhat dysfunctional society and so any form of healthcare is going to be similarly dysfunctional.
Nerdy discussions of voting systems like ranked choice vs FPTP always trigger this feeling in me, like the voting system doesn’t matter at all. Maine implemented ranked choice and it’s not really going to improve Maine, Maine was only able to do it because it’s the whitest state in the country and as a result extremely non-polarized.
I got thinking about this when Richard Hanania pointed out that the political systems practised by Vietnam, Japan, Korea and China could hardly be more different from each other: China is nominally-communist-but-really-state-capitalist-and-authoritarian, Vietnam is actual no bullshit communist, Japan and Korea are modern capitalist societies. And yet, the day-to-day experiences of living in any of those countries are remarkably similar: low crime, low rates of children born out of wedlock (coupled with low fertility in general), high rates of educational attainment, high life expectancy. It suggests that, to the extent that your country following a particular political system makes a difference to the lived experience of its citizens at all, the difference is mainly felt on the margin. A particular political system can help to safeguard and maintain stability and economic productivity in a country, but you'll never establish a stable, functional and economically productive country without a critical mass of human capital regardless of which political system it nominally follows. A corollary of this is that debating what political system your country should follow when it doesn't have the prerequisite human capital is like debating what colour to paint your car when it doesn't have an engine.
I agree you need human capital. But compare say Hong Kong with Beijing over the last hundred years.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The interesting question is: how do you change the people, or at least stop them from changing for the worse?
I spend a lot of time in Switzerland, and on paper it should be pretty similar to many US states. Population size and density, GDP per capita, Gini index, cost of living, ect. are all pretty comparable to one of the "nice" US states. Even healthcare is kind of similar (certainly closer to the US than to the EU). Also, they have insane immigration, and have had for decades: 40% of permanent residents over 15 have an immigration background, 35% don't hold citizenship. Walk through a major city, and you'll hear a dozen different languages spoken within minutes. Walk onto a construction site, and none of them will be one of the national languages (OK, you'll probably hear Italian).
And yet, Swiss society is insanely high trust. Bikes unlocked, phones left on empty cafe tables, unaccompanied children move all over town on bikes or public transit. Farm stands have cash sitting in an open box, stores don't have locks on any product, self checkout is 100% unsupervised (and isn't using a digital scale to check what you bought).
The question is: why? How do they run a 1%-2% immigration rate, and instill the honor principle/high trust into everybody that arrives? How do they keep their citizens from defecting, practically ever? Of course, rate of incarceration is extremely low, too.
Or maybe we have to turn the question around: why are Americans choosing to defect so frequently now? Is the gini index not covering real differences in inequality?
More options
Context Copy link
I think honestly this isn’t a system we created and thus don’t “deserve”. The thing is that we’ve been taught to be cynical hyper-individualistic, hedonistic, lazy jerks. It comes from everywhere. You’ve been taught that your traditions are old and stodgy and nobody cares about them anymore. You’ve been taught that your ancestors were rotten, terrible people who genocide their way around the globe. You’ve been taught that striving is pointless and that the rich will keep you down. You’ve been taught to deconstruct everything, but never to construct.
There are lots of reasons for it. Some are hyper-consumption: if you lose access to a community in which someone can solve your problem for free, then you have to buy that service somewhere. You don’t know someone who can cook and you don’t know how to? Door Dash. Daycares are essentially replacements for extended family. It used to be that if both parents needed to work, grandparents were close by and retired and the kid could stay in a place where he’d be safe and with a loved one. Now you hire a company who pays strangers less than $20 an hour to do the same. Go down the list of home repairs, car repairs, lawn maintenance, and a lot of services replace community.
The other part is that traditional systems are terrible for governments who want to control their populations. A strong community doesn’t need or want much government interference. The Amish have their communities in pretty good order without too much need for the state to come in and control them. They don’t need welfare because they have their church to help those in need.
The final thing is the issue of legitimacy. Legitimacy comes from the people. But in order to get people to vote for whatever it is that you want, job one is to convince them to want it, or convince them that they’ve always wanted it, or that “good people” are like this. So people vote as they’ve been taught to do. You have to be taught to believe in an atomized society with no deep connections so that you’re more willing to accept the breakdowns, less willing to trust community.
Thank you. I... Guess I should say something else but actually I'm just thanking you because you voiced one of my frustrations eloquently. People making worse versions of things because the good version is patented, people creating deadweight loss to get rid of to reap the benefits... or inducing unnecessary paradigm shifts so that they can be at the top of the transition team...
I guess I really do believe that theres no actual way to create more value for people. The modern amish have everything they need really. What was the point of all this junk we made? The medicine is nice yes. The food. The energy. I don't mind the AIs, though people trying to sell them to us is just another example. Take away friends, replace with 20$/month subscription. The cars... seemed nice but slowly grow to disgust me as I see how the travel distances expand to match their speed, keeping me only farther from other people. The trinkets and stopwatches and beer umbrellas add spice... but it turns to ash in my mouth without someone to share them with.
I don’t think it’s the technology. It’s the mindset that comes through the media that’s teaching everyone to defect, that everything is rotten, and that you should focus on yourself and getting yours. And when 300 million of us get that from the firehouse of media, we act on it. And the results are pretty clear. When no one is trustworthy, and nothing is worth protecting, you get defections.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think you’re assuming the conclusion. The economic forces which make babysitters and dishwashers ubiquitous wouldn’t disappear if we’d never started critiquing imperialism.
I also think your view of the past is rose-tinted as hell. 1700s America wasn’t an endless quilt of Amish communities, waiting to be tempted out of Eden. It was a hungry, dirty, disease-ridden frontier just starting to climb the curve of industrialization. Communities weren’t solving each others’ problems “for free.” They were paying their dues on their own social contract.
We've seen a remarkable, unprecedented increase in GDP per capita in the last 200 years. However, the GDP gains may overstate the actual gain in wealth. In 1800, someone would take part in fulfilling but unpaid labor such as child rearing or food preparation. This is not measured in GDP because no goods or services were exchanged. Nowadays, the equivalent person might use daycare and Door Dash while they pursue their higher paying job as a laptop worker for a big nonprofit. More GDP is being created by the commoditization of previously unpaid work even if no more value to society is being created.
So maybe GDP per capita has increased 5,000% but real wealth has only increased like 2,000% or something. We're vastly better off now than before, but imagine how much better things could be with stronger communities.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link