site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35347 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 3, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Another thing that seems to be missing from all those analyses, that I think about more and more as my parents get older, is the effect of forcing an aging population that relies on cars to use mass transit for all their daily needs. Eliminate the cars, and you're suddenly trapping millions of reasonably active older people in "deserts" of various kinds, because it's one thing to take the subway to see a play or the bus to go to a park on the weekend, and quite another to have to lug around bags of groceries (or a pathetic little cart) on mass transit day in and day out to meet your basic needs.

For the old and disabled, a system with zero cars clearly doesn't work. Those too old/disabled to use transit probably (although not always) shouldn't be driving their own cars either, so taxis of some kind are needed. Paratransit does exist in some places, and it's really bad (as in, 2-4 hours extra waiting/travel time over using a car); as that Wikipedia article mentions, some places are subsidizing taxis (sorry, "ride-hailing services") instead which makes sense (assuming you've worked out the issues of whether your old users can use a smartphone needed to access ride-hailing services).

While I'm very pro-transit, there are definitely edge cases where cars are necessary, so literally zero cars is not a reasonable goal, and any pro-transit person arguing for such is either confused or being misunderstood.

Rereading your comment, I see

quite another to have to lug around bags of groceries (or a pathetic little cart) on mass transit day in and day out to meet your basic needs.

Trying to discourage car usage in an area so not-dense that people can't walk to a grocery store is nonsense. No one would ever take transit to do their grocery shopping if they had another option (except for maybe occasional trips of a specialty store of some kind); that sounds awful. Work on improving density first.

Urbanists may want to discourage people from living in single-family-home suburbs in favor of denser areas; they certainly don't want to leave suburbs exactly as they are except deleting all the cars and putting in buses and trains.

they certainly don't want to leave suburbs exactly as they are except deleting all the cars and putting in buses and trains.

Okay, but:

The California Air Resources Board on Thursday signed off on a sweeping plan requiring that by 2035, all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the state be electric vehicles or other emissions-free models.

Given that we lack the raw materials to replace ICE cars with electric cars, I think they sort of are. They can't make riding the LA public transportation system attractive. But they can effectively ban most private ownership of vehicles. Degrading quality of life of people in the suburbs is surprisingly popular among some political factions.

I've been hearing "the new emissions standards are impossible to achieve affordably" all my life. Somehow they always manage to figure it out, either by changing the cars or changing the standards.

Are new cars not less affordable now? I mean a new car in 2022 averaged $48,080. A new car in 1980 was something like $8,025 or $23,920 in inflation adjusted dollars. Part of this is consumer behavior and non-emissions or efficiency improvements. "CPI: New Vehicles" already "corrects" for quality improvements including emissions or efficiency improvements, so shouldn't be used to compare affordability.

That is an interesting point. Not sure how to properly control for cars lasting longer, making new cars even more of a luxury item as used cars are not as bad, but that certainly suggests that cars really are getting less affordable. Also not sure how to judge how much of the cost increases are specifically due to emissions or efficiency improvements as opposed to other improvements like safety and convenience features. Maybe trying to compare the prices of the cheapest new cars over time instead of the average? Required safety features would still get priced in, but I guess they should be considered in the question of whether cars are being legislated out of affordability.

There's no reason to buy a cheap new car today, you can buy a used car instead.

My wife, my parents, my sister, my brother in law, and myself all make six figures. The newest car in the group is a 2018. The average is roughly 2013. And I don't feel deprived in any way.

Cars used to break down at 100k miles. And features used to vastly improve every ten years. Now we all drive ten year old cars and they have Bluetooth and abs and airbags.

New cars are more comfortable, with no degradation of the frame or suspension, and there is no question about maintenance or accident history. Used cars are also rarely as good a deal as people think they are. People still want $15k for their 10-year-old basic options sedans because “they changed the oil regularly.”

It is objectively false that there is no reason to buy a new car over a used one. Both choices have their advantages.

Now we all drive ten year old cars

This has been true for quite some time; the average car in 2010 was 10 years old as well (it's crept up to 11-12 years since then).

Cars used to break down at 100k miles.

Unfortunately for us, manufacturers have figured out that they can just stop updating the software for the screens (and in Tesla's case, accidentally burn the hardware out by writing so much telemetry data to the integrated flash storage). The car still works fine; the radio not so much.

When I was car shopping last year, this was very much not the case, due to the supply chain issues. We ended up buying new and waiting several months, despite preferring something a bit older and less expensive, because used cars cost about the same as new ones. Some used cars cost more than used ones last summer, because there wasn't a waiting list.

The situation may have started to clear up by now, though.

because used cars cost about the same as new ones.

This is true precisely because of my point: used cars today are about as good as new cars. This was simply not true twenty years ago, or even ten years ago. There used to be some really shitty cars on the market. Growing up the used cars were stuff like the Neon, the Cavalier, the first gen Ford Exploder, the Jeep Cherokee. Of course, being middle aged now, I'm growing nostalgic for some of those cars, but they were real junk in a lot of ways. Used to be that bottom end old cars got to 60 in "eventually;" had self changing oil by 80k, were junk or Ships of Theseus by 150k, were pigs on gas if they were larger than a Focus, were loud and uncomfortable and ugly. As a result they lost value quickly as better, faster, prettier cars came on the market. Sports cars went through such a revolution between 1995 and 2012 or so that every five years cars were noticeably faster and better handling.

Today that simply isn't the case. Even mom-mobiles are generally fast enough that the limitation is the driver's willingness to press down on the gas moreso than the car's capability to hit higher speeds. Most of the creature comforts like heated seats, ABS, bluetooth audio, GPS, rearview cameras were standard equipment on mid-high end models by 2015 so it's not something you need to go new for. Car design was in a much better place 2010-2015 than it was 1980-2005, so used cars look better than they used to, and improved paint prevents that sun-faded look old trucks used to get. ((Maybe I'm just crotchety, but I also think that car design has gone into decline in the last couple years as companies compete to be more EXTREME on the one end, more aggressive and less friendly all around, and all the SUVs start to look like fish.))

the first gen Ford Exploder

Either this is just an amusing typo, or there's some lore here I may have forgotten.

Also, to your point, it's fascinating that cars today have bigger power numbers and bigger fuel economy numbers than cars of the 90's or even the 2010's. The Buick Regal GS(?) had a turbo-4 engine good for like 270 HP (at least, as advertised) and even that is kind of hum-drum now. A compact SUV from today probably has just as much torque as a V8-powered F-150 from the 90's.

and improved paint prevents that sun-faded look old trucks used to get.

I think even 2000's cars have started to get that weird paint crust from age that I used to associate with beat-up 90's cars. Time will tell how cars from the past decade hold up in another 10 years.

But to be clear: the EU and California are completely banning new ICE cars starting 2035. Electric cars require large batteries and the raw materials needed to make those batteries in sufficient quantities do not exist.

So yeah: maybe these standards will be pushed back as we approach them or some sci-fi battery technology will be invented soon. Or new cars will be de facto banned in much of the developed world.

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