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 strongly doubt that you can do this, short of sterilization by IQ score. Any benefits to having kids will wind up as the underclass neglecting an extra kid and pocketing the money.
This is anachronistic when we live in an age where even many under-achieving demographics have bellow replacement fertility rate.
You only need smarter people to have more children. It has happened historically too you know. I outright say encourage those capable to have more children. You know that we can socially shame or even punish people who are absentee parents.
Indeed, the sacrifices relating to being a parent, in an environment where it is more encouraged and more seen as the default, could lead to people who are more capable taking such role.
Especially taking in mind my suggestion for pushing back on higher education for the 20s and all other things I suggested.
And yes designing bonuses that do target in some way capabilities might be a way to do this too.
You seem to be responding to a scenario of just giving everyone as much "gibs" possible to have children which isn't what I argue for.
It is impossible to do the things you don't even try to do and where the prevailing sentiment is fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Isn't this culture of naysaying towards strong attempts for pro natalism in itself part of the reason why this isn't happening? We have no choice but to try such measures.
Do you have any alternative?
Also, my view is that extreme supposedly based suggestions or implementations are the enemy of doing "based" things in an ethical manner. This extreme suggestion ends in the comfortable place for our dominant ideology, which is to do nothing. Plus I don't actually want to do the unnecessarily extreme option. Compare the modern success in eliminating certain genetic diseases with family planning policies with the also historical event of certain regimes previously in the 20th century that murdered people who had genetic diseases. If we compare the two and also compare doing nothing, the family planning policies that strongly reduced genetic diseases of thalassemia and tay sachs disease were the best option by far over two really bad alternatives. And family planing worked because people listened to the advice and modified their breeding accordingly. The mentality of the naysayer would have had as believe that such policies would be impossible.
We don't need to sterilize the underclass to do my suggestion.
More options
Context Copy link
If you're already at the point where you can actually get the education system/government to agree to this as a goal, actually implementing it would be child's play. You've already blown up the existing orthodoxy completely to get here after all, there's nothing stopping you from just putting minimum parental IQ levels for the bonuses. If someone from the underclass can actually qualify for a subsidy accurately and competently designed to encourage people with good genes to procreate, that's a net benefit.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link