site banner
PaperclipPerfector  25d ago (text post)   36889 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 27, 2025

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Speaking of fences - do you have any guesses how did the US survive with government spending per capita dramatically lower than now for the first couple hundred years of its history?

Big thing - most people didn't live long enough to get old, and the ones who did were supported by their children, or they weren't. We (across Western civilisation - this is profoundly not US-specific) have socialised the cost of elder care (including healthcare), and didn't realise at the time we did it how big the bill could get when everyone would survive to old age.

Medium thing - as spiritual coercion (the implied threat of donate to church-funded public services or go to hell) stopped working, we had to use a lot more temporal coercion to fund the sort of thing that used to be funded by churches and is now funded by the State. Also, the main relevant service is education, and at some point we made the (mostly correct) decision that education through high school should be universal, which dramatically raises the cost and makes charging parents impractical (because a substantial minority can't pay).

Medium thing - post sexual revolution, we normalised single motherhood. That requires a system of transfer payments to single mothers. (Child support is insufficient, because the percentage of a man's potential earning power that the child support infrastructure can extract is MUCH lower than the percentage that a wife and kids can extract in an intact marriage by relying on natural affection).

Small thing - more complex societies need more infrastructure, which costs money, and is often easier to fund through the state than privately, although libertarians have found rare historical examples of things like roads being funded privately.

By not having 11 super carriers or providing an inflation adjusted pension to every citizen.

how did the US survive with government spending per capita dramatically lower than now for the first couple hundred years of its history

Since I'm sure you're aware of the differences, at least at a high level, I will note that there's quite a bit of daylight between "the country would not survive" and "abolishing these programs would be a net negative". Especially given, as mentioned, that the major cost drivers are politically untouchable.

I will note that there's quite a bit of daylight between "the country would not survive" and "abolishing these programs would be a net negative".

Ha, my bad, unnecessary rhetorical flair. Of course, this is a complex topic and big spending can be broken down and justified in any number of ways. I just had strong impression that you're from the team that says "no, it's okay to bulldoze over this fence, you just watch!", not the other one, so seeing you, in the context of this discussion, attempting to wield this weapon left me briefly disoriented.

Even today after all the money is spent on defence, veteran benefits, SSI, medicare, other health progams (medicaid), income security (TANF, Section 8, WIC etc), and eduation. The remaining stuff that comes to mind when you think of government (basically all the bureaucracies, parks, etc) adds up to a bit over $100 billion so far this year or about 5.5% of 1.8 trillion spent so far this fiscal year.

What percentage of the deficit though?

So far fiscal 2025 YTD it's about 14%. The money goes to the big transfers. Last year Medicare, Social Security, Defense, Interest, Medicaid, Income Security and Veterans Benefits and housing were 80% of the budget and 430% of the deficit.

https://www.usaspending.gov/explorer/budget_function

Last year Medicare, Social Security, Defense, Interest, Medicaid, Income Security and Veterans Benefits and housing were 80% of the budget and 430% of the deficit.

Sure, OK -- but if you're trying to kill the deficit, grabbing whatever low-hanging portion of that 14% exists while you're figuring out what you can do about the big, popular things seems logical?

National debt was much lower, so very little interest to pay; no social welfare programs; small army except in wartime; no horde of "alphabet agencies" interfering with everything.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats