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 -
As of now, Polymarket implicitly thinks either the deadlock will go on longer than 8 months, or that we'll have a candidate coming completely out of left field (i.e. one that's not currently listed). The total potential profit from buying a no share for all options, assuming none come true, is just 38 cents. Granted, Polymarket is a fairly thinly traded platform, but it's still real money people are betting with so that gives it a good deal of legitimacy in my eyes.
Current frontrunners are, as of 10/20/23:
So there's around a 60% probability that the eventual winner isn't in that list, or that the deadlock lasts longer than the market resolution date of June 30, 2024.
Modern US federal politics is notorious for its gridlock, but this is taking it to a new level.
I must confess that I'm kind of enjoying it.
You shouldn't. Stasis is ignorable for now, but it has huge costs across society that we'll have to pay one way or the other, either through direct payments for debt or future wars, or indirectly from stifled development.
The first thing mentioned in that article is that housing isn't being built because the government is actively getting in its way. Sure, a government deadlock will, sadly, not stop the regulators, but it'll (at least temporarily) stop lawmakers from tossing even more monkey wrenches into an already-completely-dysfunctional system. Also, "new rail systems won't get built" just sounds like the status quo to me...
I mean, I still vividly recall that during the long Obama government shutdown the only way they could actually get us hoi polloi to feel any pain was to actively shut down public parks (requiring more effort than doing nothing). When you're doing a performance review, and the answer to "so what do you do, exactly?" is "as long as you pay me I won't set fire to the building", it's time for that employee to go.
Correct, and when governments are broken the old regulations stay in place. YIMBYs are constantly stymied by all the veto points present in American politics.
Surely you must think at least some regulations are good, like "don't put poisonous substances in the drinking water". Other regulations can obviously be abused by rent-seekers, while others still can be bad if they were just poorly thought out. The solution to the latter two is to... just make better regulations. This is hard and it won't always go in the right direction, but it's pretty dang important for a functional society.
The "regulations are always net-negative" idea is a goofy right-libertarian version of Whig history that will have us drinking the equivalent of cyanide-laced water for some future problem. Sure, it might look like there's nothing critically important to regulate right now, but society and technology move on, and it's not very helpful if the machinery of state is completely paralyzed by people endlessly throwing sand in the gears because they thought regulations were impossible to ever do correctly.
Sorry, it sounds like you want some easy slam-dunk argument against some sort of cartoonish capital-L Libertarian, but that's not who you're speaking to. :) I don't want NO government and NO regulations - of course some regulations are good. But that says nothing about whether we have TOO MUCH government and TOO MUCH regulation right now. Most of the important obviously good stuff has been in the system for decades (if not centuries), because it's, well, important. And even if we kicked legislators out for 51 weeks out of every 52, the important stuff would still pass because it's, well, important. I happen to believe that most of what our modern legislators do IS net-negative, and I'm afraid you can't just hand-wave that away with a strawman argument.
As for YIMBYs, bless your heart Charlie Brown, you keep trying to kick that football. Surely one day they'll win! You yourself linked an article about the dire straits we're in. "Don't try to stop or slow down the government, we need it to fix all the problems caused by the last 50 years of government!"
If you think all regulations can be monolithically grouped into a giant "is bad" category then there's probably no convincing you no matter what I say. If the difference between "bad regulations" and "good regulations" don't matter since you think legislators will almost always do the wrong thing, then yeah, no point in trying I guess.
Comments like these are pretentious and unnecessary.
I have no idea how you're extracting these arguments from what I said. (shrug)
For the record, I wasn't trying to be mean-spirited (just "funny"), but I see it could come off that way.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's because there are a bunch of practices in place to minimize the impact of government shutdowns as long as they don't run too long. They could've ended the practice of requiring critical Federal employees to work without pay, leading to shutting down airports, not sending SSI checks, a ton of law enforcement activity being suspended (send CBP home), etc... If you're middle class and/or old you're insulated from most of the negative short term impacts by design.
Cool, cool. So, the obvious follow-up question is, can we just keep those critical federal employees, and drop everyone else? We might even survive firing the seven critical workers who were kept off furlough to keep people away from the Washington Monument.
I'm being a little facetious. You have a point, of course - lots of government services seem extraneous right up until the point where you (or someone else in a worse situation) desperately need them. It would be great if there was an option somewhere between 0% and 100% of our current government, where the first 10% to go isn't the part calculated to maximize spite.
More options
Context Copy link
A government shutdown that lasts more than a month or so would result in the border patrol being offered employment by the Texas state government en masse, albeit probably with very different policies.
I mean, honestly, being a young enough person to not expect social security anyways who lives in a region that would almost inevitably be the imperial core for at least some portion of the continental US if the federal government collapses under its own incompetence and infighting, just shutting it down and not worrying if it reopens seems fine I guess.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The government not doing things is not the same as nothing getting done.
There's some parts of the US that are doing well, like computers and renewables, but a lot of other places have devolved to an ossified gerontocracy. And a broken government, really, really doesn't help.
Disagree on that one. That the Academic/Managerial class has devolved into an ossified gerontocracy, is exactly why a broken government is a good thing.
The less opportunity or ability they have to interfere with the people actually producing things the better.
Don't underestimate the ability of a broken government to get in the way though. The government offices being empty doesn't mean buildings get built without approval, it merely means that nothing can be approved at all, so nothing will be built. The enforcement wing is sadly usually the last to break, so it can continue preventing action long after it has lost the capability to allow it.
We're talking about the feds here. The vast majority of things don't need federal approval. The state governments can approve things.
Fair. I guess my impression is that state governments are nearly just as broken, or at least we'll on the way. Plus, the things that do require federal approval are rather important.
I mean there's: nearly all large scale farming and mining, most (all?) energy production, pharmaceuticals (both new production of old drugs and new drugs,) and many imports, just off the top of my head.
It's not like all that will stop with a broken government, but the anarchotyrranic effects will only get stronger.
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
Honestly, to some extent it feels like it matches the overall sentiment of the electorate with respect to where they want the country to go: a minority of really strong opinions, but definitely no consensus and a whole lot of normies quite content to grill and shrug.
And despite the US method of forming coalitions differing from a parliamentary system, this isn't unheard of in Europe either: Belgium was without a coalition government for the better part of two years during the Obama administration.
Belgium doesn’t have government shutdowns, though, does it?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link