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 -
Anything works as long as the general public voted it in place. I don't particularly care about whether it would be managed at the state or federal level. They'd probably negotiate treaties and recognize equivalent tests if the need arose.
As for their content:
A combination of IQ test and general knowledge for core franchises.
If you want to just be eligible to vote? Name the 3 largest political parties and their public policies. Score above the threshold IQ where you'd have been deemed Special Needs or outright lacking capacity. In other words, don't be an imbecile.
You want to drive? Take the same driving test we do today.
Want to drink? Show you understand how many drinks it takes to take your BAC to the legal limit. Take a simulated driving test while drunk, so you get a visceral understanding of its effects.
Do strongly addictive drugs without a medical prescription? Display a clear understanding of the dangers involved, the signs of toxicity and overdose, the longterm side-effects. Clearly state you understand the risks, you're releasing the state of liability for any expenses you incurr that you can't personally cover, buy insurance, or optionally post a bond that will be returned if you don't fall afoul in a fixed period of time. Optionally a cool-down period of a month, so anyone not strongly motivated doesn't bother. Perhaps have seminars by ex-addicts warning of the dangers.
Want to sell that shit? Don't want to go through med school? All of the above, with the same level of detail and knowledge you'd see in a geeky member of /r/Psychonauts. A clear understanding of customer protection laws, truthful advertising, quality control. Liability if not strictly vetting that your customers are licensed to buy too. It would probably look like a version of a pharmacy exam but much harder.
Want to gamble? I'd prefer no licensing at all, but if necessary, demonstrate basic understanding of probability and that the House always wins in the end.
Yes, with strict checks and balances, and mandatory consultation with domain experts. If you trust the systems in place that license doctors, lawyers and accountants, envision more of the same, but open to anyone who can pass the tests.
Alternatively, for people who have passed the hardest core tests, extend them the ability to buy any service, from anyone regardless of qualifications. If you trust some rando on the internet to be your doctor, then you can take his medical advice while discharging him of the liability normally involved.
Edit:
The simplest solution I can endorse is Robin Hanson's idea of a Store That Sells Banned Things.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided#fn1x15
Add in an exam to be able to access said store, and then I accept this factual consideration, and consider it to be positive on balance.
At this point, we're just living in a "light all of the tax dollars on fire" fantasy land with a ballooning bureaucracy to boot (who else administers all of these very involved exams).
I can't think of a worse hell for personal liberty.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link