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 -
As an aside, bankruptcy is a notable exception to this with a long historical pedigree -- the State gets to abrogate perfectly consensual contracts and has had that right for centuries.
Somewhat understand this. At least one party is usually financially aware and responsible. If that can be priced into the product then the end result is that unreliable borrowers just don't get to be able to borrow money. If people are willing to accept that then so be it. My understanding is that they tend to complain about this result: "Banks wont lend money to the underclass"
Yup, and I totally understand this.
The weird thing, in my view, is that bankruptcy is an impairment on the fulfillment of a consensual contract that all parties actually want, in some sense. Lenders like it because it provides for orderly and final disposition of insolvent creditors. Creditors like it because it means they won't be on the hook indefinitely and can get another chance.
As such, it's a (small) thorn in the side of libertarian theory. I'm still broadly a squishy-libertarian, but it's an interesting theoretical topic. And it's certainly interesting to think about in a forum that isn't dominated by people trying to drunk using shitty internet gotchas.
If, as you say, all parties want it, then, were it not the law, it could simply be written into the contract. Contracts often have exit clauses or explicitly defined penalties for noncompliance. Loans generally don't because they're written in the context of a legal environment that guarantees exit via bankruptcy; it's implicit.
I'm not sure all parties do actually want bankruptcy protections, but either way I don't see how it threatens the theoretical basis for preserving the sanctity of contract.
I'm not sure what the clause "were it not the law" means. In any case, it's not implicit, but explicit, that a bankruptcy court has broad authority to modify or set aside any contract or part of a contract necessarily to achieve the objectives of bankruptcy law.
I also don't think it threatens the theoretical basis of sanctity of contract! This is a small thorn in that basis that is readily explainable and proves nothing about the general case. Again, this isn't the internet gotcha-game.
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