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 -
It is that way in those cities because the authorities make it that way. We used to have dense urban cores that were safe, prosperous, and full of healthy communities. The authorities (loosely defined) destroyed them, often on purpose, and have made lasting commitments to prevent their regeneration. The story of how and why they did this is long, and despite being matters of public record, not widely known, but that explains the difference. We destroyed our communities, and committed ourselves to ruinous policies that preclude anything like them from arising again. Suburbia is not anyone's first plan, it's merely the workable option somewhat out of reach of the authorities' malign influence.
Could you provide links to this story, or at least provide a hint where to start looking? It seems worth knowing more about, if only so other countries can avoid the American issues.
Everyone is discussing race related issues- but car culture led to freeways, which the federal government built through the centers of beautiful dense cities knocking down beautiful stone buildings etc. Here is a video covering this transformation: https://youtube.com/watch?v=n94-_yE4IeU&list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa&index=8
It is from a great series on the wild economic incinerator of suburbia, how poor downtowns produce more economically (well, income for cities) than upperclass areas or newer malls etc.: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa It also explains a lot of American cost disease re infrastructure.
If you look at pictures from 1930s downtown anywhere in the US, it looks very similar to a European equivalent. Massive beautiful stone structures erected in the late 19th century etc. 9:16 on the first video has some good pictures.
More options
Context Copy link
Darryl Cooper did a good 5-part series on this recently: Part one; part two; part three; part three point five; part four; part five.
Wow! This truly is a great series.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As mentioned, it's a long story, but I can try to get you started. Some elements:
Desegregation/Blockbusting/"White Flight", and the mechanics thereof. @The_Nybbler links one history, I offer excerpts from another here. The short version is that desegregation failed on its own terms, injecting massive amounts of interracial violence into previously peaceful and prosperous communities, which the authorities completely failed to anticipate or respond to.
The housing projects. See the discussion of Pruitt-Igoe here. These occurred more or less contemporaneously to desegregation, and were likewise driven by Progressive social-engineering theories with the aim of creating peaceful, prosperous communities for the underclass. The result were, in the words of Spike Lee, "self-cleaning ovens."
Deinstitutionalization resulted in insane people living on the street, rather than in controlled environments.
De-criminalization and toleration of vagrancy allowed the homeless to become a long-term problem within communities.
These specific policies did fatal damage to the communities of most major American cities. With the communities destroyed, the social basis for reform and regeneration no longer existed, and so the problems became self-perpetuating, and have continued since. Attempted solutions to the problems created by the last attempted solutions have created significant problems of their own.
The damage of these policies was aggravated by a number of other social trends and interventions, which amplified the damage they did. In most cases, the harms disproportionately fell on minority and especially black communities.
No-fault divorce, which delivered few of the benefits its advocates claimed, and all the harms its opponents warned of.
The Sexual Revolution generally, which likewise failed to secure the benefits its advocates claimed, caused a whole host of problems in its own right, and is effectively irreversable.
Lax drug policies and the cultivation of a ineradicable drug culture. The war On Drugs is one of the go-to examples of systemic racism, ignoring the historical fact that harsher punishments for the drugs ravaging black communities was a policy explicitly demanded by those communities, in an attempt to control the damage flowing outward from the above policies.
Educational "reforms" that have generally degraded the educational system's effectiveness, failed at all stated goals, massively increased costs, and occasionally observably made kids more violent.
...And the list goes on and on, but these would be a start. I suppose the short summary would be that, in the 1960s, Progressivism gained a critical mass of support sufficient to implement its policies, and that we live now in the ruins that they made of what once was a remarkably prosperous and orderly society.
How do you square this theory with the fact that many European countries have gone further with their progressive reforms along all of these dimensions (at least, that is my general impression - I'm not willing to claim expertise in every single EU member state's social policies and what it's like to live there, but I am willing to claim that most Americans perceive that European countries are both more progressive and less disordered than the US).
So, do European countries not have no-fault divorce? Do they not have lax drug policies or housing projects? Are the cops in London going around cracking rough sleepers over the head with their billy clubs and shipping them off to institutions? (I mention London specifically because the UK is the only European (kind of?) country I have any experience traveling in, and it's generally amazing to me how few "street people" you see in the cities. Most people I've talked to about this cite the stronger social safety net as being the reason.
As much as I instinctively would like more aggressive policing of vagrancy, vandalism, and property crime in American cities, I'm not sure it will solve the fundamental problem of too many people without jobs or other economic support. Given what it costs to actually arrest, jail, bring to trial, convict, and imprison somebody, it's simply not worth prosecuting most low-level property crime, even if it makes living in cities hell. Low-crime times and places seem more correlated with "enough jobs and housing to go around" than with "enough cops, courts and jails".
European countries are more or less racially homogeneous in comparison. That's how, I'd say.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Here's one version: http://www.phillywarzone.com/
There used to be longer excerpts of the book online but they seem to be gone or at least hard to find. The short version is the "white flight" you've heard about, where white people would run to sell their house at the slightest hint of black people moving in.... well, it turns out often the black people weren't just moving in. They were violently driving the white people out, with the assistance of the local authorities. The book is about Philadelphia, but I heard similar stories about Baltimore a long time ago.
More options
Context Copy link
There’s about 10 different versions of it, including that is was part of a Jewish plot to weaken Christianity, but I suspect he’s referring to poor implementation of desegregation policies.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link