site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 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.

4
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This seems like a solved and understood problem. And Cowen himself is aware of the solution and has had interviews with the people that proposed it.

The solution is skin in the game. The person making the decisions needs to be personally impacted by outcomes.

That impact doesn't have to always be punishment, as @faul_sname points out below.

There is probably some low hanging fruit for accountability. Military projects should be tied to specific generals that care about a good legacy. And possibly a politician as well. Let those names become a curse or a word that means reliability to the grunts.

School boards should require that they have kids at the school. And possibly they should only be elected by those who have kids in school. It's possible that mixing in traditional politician accountability systems has made these positions worse. They should maybe be anonymous, or at least part of the board should be.

We require that politicians live in the areas or districts they represent. That is a decent start. Economic tie ins or closer representational tie ins should also exist. Lords of an area used to share their name with the area.

It mostly just feels that accountability is an afterthought. Something added in as a shitty ineffective process, because no one really cares about the hard work of real accountability systems. This feels backwards. The power shouldn't be allowed to exist in the first place without accountability. The Constitution was written partly as a way to say "this is how we won't make the same screwups as the last government".

Let the people in power figure out their own accountability systems, or just don't let them have power.

The solution is skin in the game. The person making the decisions needs to be personally impacted by outcomes.

...

Military projects should be tied to specific generals that care about a good legacy. And possibly a politician as well. Let those names become a curse or a word that means reliability to the grunts.

I don't see how that's really "skin in the game", by your own definition. It doesn't seem similar in kind to your other examples. Take the recent F-47 award. There are specific generals and politicians "tied to" it, at least at the moment of the major decision to award. I guess accountability has been achieved? What about all of my other discussion about the difficulties of judging the outcomes ten to twenty-five years from now? Donald Trump is certainly a politician who is trying to put his name on it. Whether you agree with his name being tied to it, looking at a life expectancy table, he's almost certainly going to be dead by the time some of those outcomes come 'round. Does he have "skin in the game" by your definition?

It's not an either or thing. It's a gradient.

Some things increase skin in the game.

I think tying names and reputation to weapons systems is one way to have skin in the game, but it's obviously not very much skin if it's only a small part of their reputation.

Seems like it's time for @faceh to tap his sign again. It must be getting worn down by now, maybe we can buy him a new one.

No idea what his sign is.

I have less idea than I did before. Shouldn't a metaphorical sign, be, idk, twelve words max?

In short: the elites in our society no longer have skin in the game because they are protected from facing consequences for their failures. And he expects that this will go poorly, so we need to go back to making the elite face consequences for failure.

I feel like "the sign" one taps should be a single sentence. Like the classic tweet:

I meant fuck YOUR feelings, my feelings must be handled gently, like a baby bird.

The solution is skin in the game. The person making the decisions needs to be personally impacted by outcomes.