site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   33259 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 20, 2023

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.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Social security is going to run out of money, so what? Anyone with wisdom has been planning to not get anything back out of it for ages.

This overstates the case considerably. The report of the trustees in 2022 estimates (rough estimates of course but the best ones we have so they'll do) that all the way through to 2096 SS benefits at 74% of the current level would be sustainable with no changes at all in tax law. That's a big gap, but not a completely irresolvable one with some changes here and there. A couple of percentage increase in payroll taxes eliminates the problem entirely, and while there may not be political will for that at this juncture when the problem starts to come into closer view by the 2030s it's hardly out of the question.

The important point to remember is that the OASDI trust fund is huge and generates its own income so a moderate deficit between income and outgoings in not a particularly large problem; in the coming decades it will start to be exhausted if no changes are made, but as I say those changes don't have to be revolutionary for the problem to be resolved.

if people planned well and/or had wisdom, there wouldn't have been the creation of the welfare program in the first place

I expect social security benefits to be paid by money printing.

We are become brown Argentina.

I would bet heavily on means testing as the primary solution.

It is extremely optimistic to assume there will be a solution, as opposed to periodic bailouts paid for by money printing and brought about by one party shutting down the government until the other gives in.

That is the first time in at least a decade someone has called me optimistic. Perhaps there is hope left!

Sure, they'll try to hold it together with string and bubblegum. I just think that "tax the fat cats" (of whom there will be ever fewer) is historically the option most often chosen.

I grant that it's possible. I don't think it will happen though. I think they'll admit bankruptcy first.

You expect a government to admit when they screwed the pooch?

In this case yes, because they'll get put through the wringer worse if they don't.

Anyone with wisdom has been planning to not get anything back out of it for ages.

All two of us? Meanhile, the other ~350 million Americans are congenitally incapable of imagining that a handout might end.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats