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 probably should make an effort post about (not so) useful fictions, but in the meantime you get this: "Retirement" without a greater support structure has two critical components: 1. Provide for your own parents once they can't anymore 2. Have kids that can then provide for you once you can't anymore.
Pensions are a useful fiction that, similar to money, fulfill the same function while reducing friction and risks. But unlike money, which has a single requirement to be useful - other people taking money in exchange for goods & services - and a single result - YOU being willing to take money in exchange for goods & services - which incidentally are perfectly aligned by incentives, pensions actually still have both requirements - people still need to now provide for the current pensioners, and someone still needs to have kids so that someone is around to provide for us - while only having one result - people providing for the current pensioners through the pension system. The second requirement is just left hanging, at best handled with a blasé "well we can't force people to have kids" or at worst with a stonewalling reality denial "but I paid into the pension so I deserve to get my care!".
The incentives are totally fucked up; I've recently talked with a friend about it who isn't sure whether he wants kids, and one of the main counterarguments for him was (retirement) money. If he has no kids, he can work more, save up more, and also has to spend less, so he will have waaay more money than in the alternative reality with kids, where he has to work less and also has to spend more. So the incentives are aligned so that the people are outright punished for actually fulfilling the second basic requirement for retirement to work at all. In fact you get double punished; I still also get punished for other people not having kids, since my pension later on will be worth much less since we lack the manpower to provide it to the degree we'd like. Useful fictions aren't magic, the things that need to be done still need to be done, it's only about setting up the incentives right as well as reducing friction and risks. Letting the market handle it may clear up some inefficiencies but doesn't really change the fundamental issue, while increasing taxes one way or another may fix issues now but doesn't unfuck the incentives.
Immigration can stuff some holes, but ultimately you're just putting it off on other countries and the realities of immigration in most western countries is a thoroughly mixed bag.
Why does no one mention the unthinkable? I.e - No government funded pension at all?
I know, I know, straight up impossible. Free money is just too strong of a drug, and once you've had it, nothing short of rebuilding civilization from scratch can make a people get used to the idea of not having it.
But as a dreamer, I am left wondering that a lot of our economic and social worries wouldn't exist in the absence of giving people free money.
People would actually have to plan for a retirement, They would have to have kids such that the kids can look after them. The kids won't move too far away from their parents (reducing social atomization), Those two things in and of themselves are a massive restructuring of incentives, with so many knockon effects.
Because free money creates extremely strong voting blocs. This is a general problem with democracy, at least democracy with short-sighted voters by and large.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link