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 -
Do you want drug resistant tuberculosis? Because that's how you get drug resistant tuberculosis.
US not spending that money and lowering taxes, which is desired creates great opportunities for virtuous individuals to do charity and make sure Africans have free PREP, HIV drugs and so on.
Why should USG do everything in the world ? There's plenty of big foundations. If Rockefeller Foundations is spending less money on left-wing NGOs in the West and more money on aid to poor in Africa, that's a win all around.
More options
Context Copy link
Wouldn't flood Africa with drugs be what causes drug resistance? How does cutting them off cause it?
I reject your fearmongering. I don't think you know that, and I'm not willing to trust you. I'm unwilling to be manipulated by these kinds of arguments, and I do view them as manipulations instead of true arguments.
There an entire ocean between DC and Africa, and an entire continent between me and DC. I do not want my tax dollars being burned up so an illiterate farmer in Mali can get tuberculosis treatment. I do not want to supplement the birthrate of Africa through medicine and food while they can't even keep their own populations under control, and instead they spill over into Europe, and try to reach America. I do not want the sweat of my brow to clothe another man, to keep another man's wife, to feed another man's children.
Even if you were right, I would take drug resistant tuberculosis if it meant funding the government with tariffs instead of income taxes. You underestimate what I am willing to accept in order to end the unacceptable.
Why do you have so great a desire for the government to be funded by tariffs, instead of income taxes?
Because income taxes take money from productive people because they are productive. That is wrong and it kills growth more than anything else, including tariffs.
Tariffs, on the other hand, take money from people sending money abroad. This makes it more expensive to import and give domestic producers protection from foreigners.
You tax what you want less of. I don't want less income. I want less imports.
Why?
Because when you import something, you are sending value produced inside the country, outside to country, in exchange for those goods. When you buy things produced inside the country, all the increased value stays inside the country.
Maybe some countries, due to geography or circumstance, are required to live this way. Not the USA. We can and should be wholly self-sufficient right here on this continent.
Why is China so much wealthier today than fifty years ago? Because we sent them money in exchange for value-added goods. Now they are much wealthier, and we are much poorer in real terms (gold).
Let's play a game.
My wife cuts my hair. I pay her zero dollars.
I go to a barber down the street. I pay him $30 for the haircut. He uses it to buy groceries.
I go to the barber down the street. I pay him $30 for the haircut. He pulls out a lighter and lights the money on fire.
I go to the barber down the street. I pay him $30 for the haircut. He sends $20 to his family in Thailand.
I go to the barber in the next state over. I pay him $30 for the haircut.
I go to a barber in Mexico. I pay him 30 pesos for a haircut.
In which of these cases is the "increased value" of the haircut staying inside the country? What is the stack rank of these possibilities?
You value a haircut.
You get a haircut from your wife. You benefit $X, the equivalent amount you would pay for a haircut.
You go to a barber, who you pay $30 for a haircut. This is you exchanging your marker of value for a service. You get a haircut and lose $30, and so your value is the same $X - $30. The barber gets $30 and spends his time, valued at $Y, and so captures value of $30 - $Y.
You get your haircut, and your barber lights the money on fire. You have the same value. Your barber still has the value, and he destroys it. This is no different than burning a house down or breaking a window. Value can easily be destroyed.
You get your haircut, and $20 goes to Thailand. Compared to the counterfactual, that $20 would have been spent on food, gas, housing, or whatever you want, but it would go to other people in your town and county and state and country. Instead that same $20 gets spent on the same things, but in Thailand. American loses $20 for nothing, Thailand gains $20 for nothing.
You go to a barber in Mexico. You pay him 30 pesos for a haircut. You gain the same $X - 30 pesos in value. The Mexican barber gets 30 pesos, and that money circulates in Mexico. The net loss for America is 30 pesos, as that's what you left in the foreign country. You're also charged a $30 tariff at the border, to discourage you from doing that again, and to make sure your local barber isn't undercut by Mexicans.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do you think trade is zero-sum? What does "real terms (gold)" mean?
It means that currency is not wealth, and real wealth is not currency.
Trade is not zero sum, it is positive sum, or you wouldn't trade in the first place. That doesn't mean there aren't winners and losers, or that all trade is necessary. In international trade, the winners are the ones who export goods, and the losers are the ones who make things that are imported.
I am in favor of free trade, between the several states. I am opposed to trade with foreign nations due to concerns of independence and self-reliance, which I value more than simple line-go-up GDP measures. That's why selling out to China is so galling. Some people are getting rich, and they're merchants and Chinese. Some people are getting fucked, and it's American manufacturers.
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
Agree with your response directed at DashesAndUnderscores @----- rather than /u/WhiningCoil who you replied to by mistake I think
Editing because dash's name fucks with name presentation
Edit 2: Can I write dash's name in quotes? "-----"
Edit 3: Does linking to their name work? https://www.themotte.org/@-----
Edit 4: I'm just going to report my own comment to our most excellent mods, punting the underscore issue to people who might be able to address it
Yes, not sure how I messed up. I did want to reply to the parent comment. My mistake.
@-----
No dice, good catch.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"If we dont fund gain of function in in Asia and Africa, where will we find new and novel diseases to justify our salaries?"
-the CDC (I imagine)
More options
Context Copy link
There are already strains resistant to individual antibiotics, but not lesser-used antibiotics or antibiotic cocktails (I'm unsure of the details) and not treating these infections allows the strains to spread. Also, incomplete treatment of bacterial infections (e.g., if your supply is suddenly cutoff) is one way antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria evolve.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link