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 am not saying it has not prospered. I am saying that free trade can generate losers as well as winners - which it sounds like we agree on. This is true of anything, so within certain parameters, that's fine. But left unchecked it can be dangerous.
Yes, perhaps. In a vacuum, I quite agree with your idea. Unfortunately, the US government already spends too much, so I am not sure where it's supposed to get this extra money from (well - I know where I would get it from, but I do not run the US government).
I mean - reductio ad absurdum, this is true at a certain point, is it not?
Imagine we gave all the wealth in the United States to the best hedge fund managers in the US, and he owned the rest of the population as chattel slaves. Since hedge fund managers are probably better at managing money than 60% of Americans, GDP would skyrocket. Or just imagine that we executed people who are credibly predicted to be a considerable drain on public welfare (like terminally ill indigent poor, dialysis patients, convicts, drug addicts, etc.) Again, this would redirect wealth in more profitable directions. But obviously people would be quite justified to argue that GDP is a false measure of their well-being in these cases, right?
And that is similarly true in the immediate post-Soviet-breakup aftermath: life expectancy dropped! That's objectively bad! That's different from arguing that the economy is better, which I doubt is true (although the Soviet break-up was a short term economic shock to be sure).
(Note that I am not arguing that Latvia would be better off now not to have broken up).
Except the fentanyl trafficked to the United States comes from China and Mexico, not from Purdue Pharma. And I doubt it would reach our shores nearly as easily (particularly from China) without the free trade apparatus we've constructed.
That's not necessarily to say that free trade is inherently bad. But there are tradeoffs, and in specific cases I think it is fair to consider whether or not the tradeoffs prompt reconsideration. I would quite like it if the end result of all of this is what I think Trump may be aiming for, and what you have proposed - closer cooperation and more trade between the US and more trustworthy allies, less trade with China (I don't really mind cooperating with China, of course). If we have to bring out the "big stick" of tariffs to accomplish that, I think it might be worth it.
Even without fentanyl they would still be addicts. Fentanyl is just a cheaper option which in a way made those addicts to commit less crime to obtain funds to finance their drug habit. The problem with the fentanyl is that it is so potent that it needs extreme care handling and diluting it. It is too easy to overdose which leads to more deaths. It is sad but most opioid addicts are for life. They could have received opioid replacement therapy from the government and lead somewhat functional lives.
This was clearly government's fault for not regulating opioids better initially.
More options
Context Copy link
This proves again that economic growth is super important. Indeed, GDP dropped substantially in the shock after the breakup of the USSR. People didn't starve but they were very unhappy, alcoholism, depression, reduced healthcare etc. all contributed to shorter life expectancy.
Maybe this shock severely traumatized some people and that's why they still argue after 30 years that the Soviet system was better. Because it was so terrible experience in their lives, they are unable to see that eventually we recovered and greatly surpassed the Soviet baseline.
This was one of the reasons why I was so adamant against widespread lockdowns and closing of schools during covid. It traumatized children too much. In Latvia math results for children who missed this time at school are still considerably lower than to others. The whole generation will be less competitive in job market. Undeveloped social skills were already serious problem in some countries and all this made it even worse.
The economy suffered during covid but this time economists did the right thing by showering people with free money. It caused terrible inflation later on but they knew that effects of suffering from more poverty would cause even greater trauma similar to what people experienced after the breakup of the USSR. By their efforts it didn't happen and at least people were prevented from this trauma. Most people don't even realize that economists are the real heroes in the pandemic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link