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 -
Completely? This is how you get shoddily-built buildings collapsing en masse and killing tens of thousands of people, as in the recent earthquake in Turkey or the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. (Regulations existed but were not enforced due to corruption, but we would expect similar outcomes if there were simply no regulations at all.)
You are presumably some kind of libertarian, so you might prefer a more market-based system. Instead of the government creating and enforcing regulations, for example, it could require construction companies to buy insurance in case their buildings collapse. This would allow the market to discover what regulations are necessary or cost-effective. But it still requires some degree of government regulation and enforcement.
I would like you to elaborate on these two. They are far from the only points I disagree with, but these are very unusual positions and I would like to hear why you believe in them.
Not OP, but my most blackpill moment was discovering that the median voter was obviously casting ignorant votes. I'd heard complaints about "I had to stand in line an hour to vote!", and they seemed kind of weird because that's still just a small fraction of the several hours minimum it takes to do a half-decent investigation of candidates, but of course the answer was that nobody does that minimum, they just press the button and get the sticker.
I can't argue with rational-ignorance theory, I totally get it if someone just wants to vote for President because they're deluged with information in that one case alone, but then maybe don't cast votes for the other offices too?
I still don't think "try to decrease voter turnout" is the solution, though. I'm not sure what the solution is. Something more like a deliberate liquid democracy might help, perhaps? Even people who would push the "just vote for everyone with the correct letter after their name" button on their own behalf might feel more weight of responsibility if ten friends have placed trust in their decision-making. That might greatly increase voter turnout in midterm elections, too; you might think to yourself "I don't have time to figure out who the next city councilor should be", but if you know someone more politically interested who you trust then your vote can go through them rather than being abdicated entirely. I might not be sure who I can trust as the next Railroad Commissioner, because that takes research time, but I could name several people I would trust to do that research for me, because personal experience is "free".
And, if someone complained that they had to wait for an hour at the DMV to take their driver's test, would you say that that seems weird because it is a small fraction of the hours it takes to study for the test? Or if someone complained about waiting an hour at a real estate office to get in to see his agent to finalize a purchase, because that is a small fraction of the hours it takes search for a home to buy? The complaint in all cases is about poor customer service, and if I have to wait for an hour to do any of those things, someone has screwed up, regardless of how much time I put in to prepare.
You know what is really dumb? Doing an "investigation of candidates" in a general election. As if you can actually figure out anything accurate about the personal characteristics of the candidates, and, more importantly, as if their personal characteristics are particularly important, compared with the policies that they are likely to support. And in a general election, the party of the candidate tells the voters far, far, far more about the policies that they are likely to support than hours of research is likely to uncover.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link