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 suppose there are hypothetical populations of uniformly idiotic demon spawn where that would be the case. In really existing America early desegregation of industry took place to increase defense production not because of widespread adoption of egalitarian views. In general reallocating labor from agriculture to industry was a winning strategy in the 20th century and segregation was an impediment to this reallocation of labor.
If you think that markets are generally better at allocating labor than governments then you might predict that de jure segregation would generally have high costs.
Finally, I'd like to point out that it's the existence of a genetic/cultural subclass which has high costs. Those costs can either be borne in common (as in segregation, border enforcement, etc.) or externalized to the individual. When de jure segregation ended the cost of it didn't go down -- it was simply transferred to the families who found that suddenly the wife needed a full-time job so they could afford a house in 'a good neighborhood with good schools'.
Modern Americans pay through the nose for segregation! Only it's much messier and more expensive because instead of coordinating to make it cost-effective, we're if anything coordinating to fight it. This serves the wealthy who can display status and power by being unconcerned about the rising cost of segregation. Good luck to everyone else, I guess.
More options
Context Copy link
Also, I think it's dishonest to stipulate that they have to be uniform. You telling me that a population of 99% idiotic demon spawn and 1% normal people wouldn't be worth keeping at a distance? Where's the line? Isn't there a debate to be had here?
Besides which the question starts to come down to why we have nations, or borders, or militaries, or law enforcement, or locks to begin with.
The Central Asian steppe nomads didn't have to be 100% idiotic demon spawn for it to still be very much worthwhile for China to build a giant wall.
Given any polity, there are groups which would probably be net-negative to have integrate on equal terms. There are many layers of defense against this happening. What to do when they're already next door, already citizens? Shrug and give up? Watch your communities unravel, your institutions collapse, your cities decay?
The only reason we can even pretend (for peacocking status reasons) that this might be acceptable is that fossil fuels have given us this staggering amount of wealth. Wish we wouldn't have squandered it, but especially I wish we weren't squandering it on this in particular.
More options
Context Copy link
You have a point here -- my distrust of integration lies rather in that I don't expect the market to be allowed to sort things out.
EDIT: To be clear, integration plus forced (at gunpoint) 'equity' is just directionally toward Harrison Bergeron and I think we can agree there are major costs there.
Yes, I'd like (actual) equality under the law and the market and individuals and communities to be allowed to find their own level, and for those who sink to not be massively subsidized by those who swim. Compassion, I think, does not extend to perpetuating dysfunction.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link