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 -
This is a bad thing. It means that I, as a seller of labor in the USA, am getting undercut by foreigners who have no business being in this country. It means that my wages will no longer reflect my productivity, but rather the supply of labor.
Probably, but I'm not the all, and I don't care about the sums of all. I'm one person, and I care about myself. The US is in a position to weather any trade wars better than the places where this guy is coming from, and I will benefit from a reduction in the supply of labor.
Unless you sell goods or services to mechanics, then your customers are getting poorer.
I want protectionism, I've taken economics classes, I understand the globohomo propaganda, and I'm not buying what you're selling.
Deport the foreigners with great prejudice. Throw up protectionist tariffs. Replace the income tax with tariffs and fund the federal government the way it was meant to be funded.
Why are you so certain you'll benefit from a reduction in the supply of labor? You are both a producer and a consumer of labor (even if you don't employ people directly you do it indirectly all the time) so the effect on you personally could go either way. The specifics depend on your line of work and your consumption habits as well as the lines of work of the migrants. I don't know what you do for work but if you're anything like the typical motte poster you won't be facing a lot of direct competition from uneducated migrants so if you're solely interested in your own economic situation as you claim the consumption effect could easily dominate.
More options
Context Copy link
I assume you don't like anti-monopoly laws either. That or you're a massive hypocrite, which is fine, but then you can't complain either about Affirmative Action and other policies designed to disadvantage those like you (apologies for assuming you're a standard white person with nothing exceptional going for you) over people with the right skin colour/beliefs.
Do you mean antitrust? I don't see how that's relevant to my comments, and I don't see how it can possibly make me a hypocrite.
I don't want monopolies for the same reason I don't want foreigners: it's bad for me. No hypocrisy needed.
"I support everyone else following principles that benefit me, but I don’t want to follow those principles myself because they dont benefit me" is like the definition of hypocrisy.
What principles? What are you talking about?
I don't want monopolies (i.e. I think that people should be prohibited by law from colluding with other providers to increase the market prices) of goods that I buy, but for I want other people selling the same thing I sell (labor) to be forced by law to collude with me to raise the market prices.
Fair markets for thee but not for me.
I'm not KMC but this objection is farcical.
Monopolies and flooding the labour market with low-skilled workers are both activities that generate significant harmful externalities. That's the principle motivating my support for both positions and I don't see any conflicts or contradictions there at all (it also motivates my support for a lot of environmental regulations like not dumping toxic waste into local drinking supplies even if that would give a moderate boost to GDP). I'm not even against monopolies on an existential basis - some industries lead to natural monopolies, and in those cases I want them regulated to reduce those externalities rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Externalities are a very valid point, and one I am sympathetic to in some cases, if the case is actually made that the externalities exist and are not being addressed. However, KMC's statement was
That does not sound to me like an argument about societal costs and benefits.
I assumed that KMC was actually a member of society and that the "bad for me" part was referring to him taking on his share of the societal consequences, as the pain and externalities aren't evenly distributed (if you're the person who gets to pay slave wages and ignore worker protection laws you don't really notice the costs that you're imposing on other people).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Protectionism applied to different areas of the economy is going to have different results. It's probably always going to lead to a reduction in total economic growth, but that doesn't mean it won't have other effects. They will have different externalities.
If your goal is something other than total economic growth or strict economic fairness - then I don't see how it's hypocritical to want to put your thumb on some areas and not others. He hasn't stated that his driving principle is maximum economic freedom for everyone.
Pure economic growth and strict fairness are pretty thin "neoliberal" goals. I think there are better things to set your political compass towards.
I think if people choose their preferred policies purely on the basis of whether or not those policies personally benefit them, and choose whether to advocate for those policies based on how much they personally will be helped or hurt by those policies, we'll end up with some pretty bad protectionist policies (e.g. the Jones Act, rent-seeking licensing regimes, and other ways of burning the commons for personal gain).
If that makes me a neoliberal, well then I guess I'm a neoliberal.
Wasn't the example earlier in the thread someone wishing an illegal immigrant well because he personally felt sympathy for the immigrant and immigration personally benefitted the immigrant?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link