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 -
But we're getting it both ways. They're pushing for "discouraging" activities they oppose while forcing us to subsidize the health risks of activities they support.
Smoking makes your insurance go way up because they specifically allowed it in the ACA, but doing meth and raw dog anal with 20 strangers a week doesn't.
If they get their single payer option you can bet they'll be charging extra for smoking, meat, guns, and weightlifting, but not for obesity, fentanyl, weed, and 1000 man gangbangs at the national bugchaser convention. And it will all be decided by Science™, so disagreeing will make you a science-denying conspiracy theorist.
Insurance companies care about how much they have to pay out. Their actuaries will compute the cost of being a steak-eating gun owner and determine it is almost nothing. They'll pass that miniscule cost onto their customers. It's not like they're going to fact check you or drop your health insurance because you had two servings of beef rather than one.
To the degree they care about weight lifting or martial arts or other masculine forms of health, I would think they would like it because it makes you cost them less if you are generally healthier.
But sure, they can't discriminate against raw-dogging enthusiasts but can against cigar enthusiasts, so it is a little unfair. But it isn't some insidious plan to punish you for being a stereotypical conservative guy with a weight bench and some guns.
I did say "when they get their public option", which will not be administered by people trying to make a profit. And of course even if it is some public-private abomination like the university system, we've already seen how willing they are to leave consumer money on the table in exchange for other benefits.
Point taken about the lack of profit motive letting government agencies pursue ideological goals rather than finding ways to serve customers while making a profit.
Do you think this public option will refuse to treat me because I own guns and eat meat? What do you think they'll do, have an ideological test to be allowed to buy in and get their medical care?
Opaque metrics filtered through a layer of "equity pricing" for who pays what, justified through procedural manipulation of cost benefit studies. Literally just the usual "make gun and car owners pay for the costs of their abhorrent lifestyles" applied to literally everything.
Isn't it obvious how this sort of thing will work? We've seen so many examples of how this, I can already write the headlines for it (and the National Review's objections as they stumble along behind history, feebly mumbling "slow down")
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You're talking about things that would happen in a free market economy. Health insurance... is not.
These are private companies and they employ actuaries to do real work. Short of government mandates forcing them to discriminate against stereotypical conservative men, they won't proactively harm their business by dropping you as a customer without financial reasons or charging you wrong.
Sir, over the last decade we've seen private companies ban, debank, and blacklist their customers on several occasions. Doing so either does not hurt their business, or in the event it does, they don't care about it.
Insurance companies fucking with normie conservative men? I think not. A select few extreme wrongthinkers have debanked. The significant minority of Americans who are right leaning men have bank accounts and health insurance like everyone else.
I am disturbed by weaponized debanking such as the Canadian trucker protestors' accounts getting frozen and Operation Chokepoint. But it is very small in magnitude and as-of-yet almost vanishingly rare. As a prediction of risk: this is a very low risk issue. I'm not particularly worried about losing my health insurance because I build ARs.
Again, your average young normie conservative already gets screwed by the existing insurance system. They had to pass a mandate to make us buy it, because otherwise we wouldn't sign up to pay for everyone else's expensive prep, hormones, sex change operations, SSRIs, reiki energy healing sessions, etc.. That was literally in the justifications for the bill:
You don't think this is going to get much worse when a public option run by Equity Consultants takes over? I think that's a severe lack of vision.
I am old enough to be politically aware during the creation of Obamacare. I know it is a wealth transfer from relatively young and low-wealth to the old. Also a transfer from working professionals to everyone else. The obviously correct health insurance plan for a young healthy person is a catastrophic-only high-deductible plan. They outlawed that in order to transfer money from people like me to old and poor people.
I'm not saying things are great regarding government legislation of health insurance, but I really doubt that I'll be denied care or rejected from a hypothetical single payer system because of normie conservative lifestyle. Eating meat and driving my car to work and owning guns in my suburban house with my nuclear family.
They'll make me pay quite a bit based on my economic position, but no one is denying me care based on gun ownership or meat consumption. It's economic discrimination, not culture war discrimination.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I can't think of a better example of a normie conservative man than someone who carves walnut gun stocks.
To be very excessively fair, they weren't unbanked, they just had business accounts closed. They still had access to regular personal banking. And Operation Choke Point equally targeted individuals selling porn and other vices. This wasn't anti-conservative but rather anti-whatever-Obama-and-his-staffers-and-Dem-appointees-didn't-personally-like. Which doesn't ease my libertarian heart.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The risk they're concerned with is "will the regulators close my bank", not the sorts of business risk we're supposed to believe they're thinking about.
Yep. Like the actual for-real government conspiracy Operation Chokepoint. A few select gun accessory sellers get their accounts closed and every bank simultaneously decides to not let them open a new account. They aren't risky in any banking sense. Some guy who carves and sells walnut gun stocks isn't a banking risk. But banks want regulators on their side and Obama told the regulators to crack down on small gun accessory businesses, so no banking for the aftermarket stocks guy.
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
More options
Context Copy link
This doesn't sound like you're getting it both ways. It sounds like it's just one way - that you can engage in just about any activity (except smoking I guess, although I have never revealed my smoking status to my insurer) without insurers taking action.
The hypotheticals are closer to a persecution fantasy than reality.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link