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 -
Interstates are categorically different from other road projects. They are major freight arteries and are partially federally funded because they are inter-state highways. I-94 connects Billings to Bismarck to Fargo to Minneapolis. US-87 that you're talking about in Texas and New Mexico is still a US numbered highway and that section specifically is the main route off of I-25 from Colorado (and Wyoming) into Texas through Raton, NM rather than routing through Oklahoma. Interstates need to be thought of like freight railroads that commuters occasionally drive on (like how Amtrak sometimes runs on freight rail and by sometimes I mean they are a minority of traffic on those rails, the rails are almost all freight owned) rather than as just "roads" and especially not "rural roads".
Ok, but would other countries have such big freight thoroughfares in such sparse areas? Especially on roads, rather than trains? I think this is part of the point they are making: We say "wow, it sure is nice that we have these massive interstate roads connecting everything to everything in a direct way" but the cost isn't really considered. Regardless of the intent of 87, is there enough traffic of any kind to justify making it 2 lanes in each direction?
Yes, of course they would, especially if the freight thoroughfare connected two big population centers. Look at Spain or France, for example. And yes, especially on roads, rather than trains: US is the world leader in freight rail, other countries are less likely to use trains for freight than US.
More options
Context Copy link
Enough that the federal government wants to upgrade it to an interstate. That said the FHA thinks it's not that much traffic compared to other major routes. But it's not "nice to have direct connects" so much as the country functions because of the surface freight moving on those highways. And we've seen what happens trying to identify what is or is not essential from a business logistics perspective.
I'm confused. You say that like it's a bad thing (which I would agree with) but the government building freight roads everywhere is doing just that. If you really want to let the market decide what's "essential" then the cost of shipping on them should reflect the actual cost of the roads, rather than being built by the federal government and used for free.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Probably not, but most other countries don't have to cover the sheer land area that the US does. As I understand it the impetus behind the interstate system is not freight routes (though that's nice), it's "what if we need to transport troops across the country if we get attacked". That's a legitimate need for any country, we simply have more area to cover.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link