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 think the use of "utility monster" should have instead been "inverse utility monster". A utility monster is someone who receives more utility per unit resource than anyone else, and thus via utilitarian calculation, should receive everything. An "inverse utility monster", for lack of a better term, is someone who receives almost no utility per unit resource, and thus via egalitarian calculation, should receive disproportionate resources to make up for this.
I previously used this to describe a case where local governments in Britain were paying £300k/yr on average, and up to £1m/yr in some cases, per child placed in social care. Insane spending per child, life-changing amounts of money for most. But still producing awful outcomes for the child who all this money is supposed to benefit. The consequence is a rapid collapse of local government's ability to fund anything beyond it's legal obligation to fund social care, shutting highly visible and cost-effective programmes like libraries in a desperate attempt to stave off the inevitable bankruptcy from the cost of comparatively useless social care.
It could also clearly apply to spending disproportionate resources keeping coffin-dodgers alive for another week, or like OP states, social spending on immigrants with barriers like language/culture that make spending on them less effective than spending on existing citizens.
More options
Context Copy link