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 -
So is it spite or something? Some person won’t let you build Kowloon walled city so now you need to punish them by ruining their home?
I’m 100% on your side if you want to build a giant condo block out on the outskirts, out in the middle of nowhere, or even in the middle of the city if the residents want you to.
All I’m saying is: the people who live in a city have a right to have say in what their city looks like, just like the residents of a country have a right to say who immigrates into their county. The government should work on behalf of the people who currently live in their city/state/country, not on behalf of people who want to move there.
If me and my neighbors don’t want you to build condos here, then leave us alone.
The problem is of course, as soon as someone moves there, the government now should be representing their interests too no? If you and 30 neighbors don't want condos, then 50 people move in and decide condos would be just peachy, you are outvoted and the condos should be built. You don't get seniority for length of habitation. That seems to be the logical outcome of your position if it just based on the will of those who live there?
Yes exactly. If a bunch of people move into the neighborhood and then all collectively decide that they want to bulldoze the houses they own and build condos, that’s what they get to do.
And what a perfect analogy for immigration this is! And why limited, careful immigration policies are so important! An Irish Catholic with 3 kids and a mechanical engineering degree who wants to move to Texas and work at SpaceX to work on starship? Come on in, buddy!
A single 24 year old Muslim man from Somalia who thinks we should execute gay people, has no education whatsoever, and calls himself a refugee? No probably not, specifically because the first guy already shares the culture of the place he’s moving and won’t really change it, and the second guy doesn’t and will.
And when they vote to bulldoze YOUR house and build condos invoking eminent domain, because they have more votes than you?
How are you making a jump from “people can decide to bulldoze the houses they own” to “people can bulldoze the houses that I own”?
Yes eminent domain is awful. Down with eminent domain.
Because you are stopping them doing what they want with their houses? Assuming you have the majority and you don't want them to bulldoze the house on their land and replace it with a condo right? You are exerting control over what they can do on their land. That was what the whole issue was, they want to bulldoze the land they own and build a condo, and you (and your coalition) won't let them.
So let's say they get control and rezone the area such that single family homes are now disallowed and tell you, you must bulldoze your house and build a condo. Now they are exerting the same control over yours (skip eminent domain if you like, the same effect can be had through rezoning). Presumably you also accept this as ok?
I’m not going to keep explaining this over and over. I think you understand my (relatively simple) point, and at this stage are just trolling.
If you own a house: it’s your house. You can collectively organize with your neighbors to protect your interests and do things like prevent zoning changes. You, as a resident, have more rights over what happens with the neighborhood than non residents.
No this doesn’t mean people can bulldoze your house. It means that if they become residents, and want to petition the city to allow them to build a condo complex on land then own then they are free to do so. If the other residents don’t want them to, then the likelihood of this succeeding is low.
You’re getting into pretty basic “active vs passive” actions type of philosophy/ethics questions here.
It’s perfectly acceptable, at least in the dominant moral structure of the west, where we both presumably life, to say: you cannot shoot somebody. Shooting people is illegal (aside from edge cases like self defense).
However we don’t have laws like: it is illegal not to prevent somebody from being shot. If I see somebody about to get shot, and can’t prevent it, we see this as different than if I had shot them myself.
Similarly: we can pass laws that say “you can’t build that here”, but don’t pass laws (generally) that say: “you must [un]build this here”.
Laws can prevent you from doing something. They can’t ([1]generally) compel you to do something.
There are obviously some exceptions to this. Taxes, the draft, child support are a few.
There are some very rare cases of “condemning” a building and forcing its destruction. Is that what you mean? Do you imagine that a property developer should be able to come to a neighborhood and force the condemnation of some of the homes of people living there so they can be bulldozed? (I doubt this is what you’re saying)
My entire point is this action vs inaction thing is often a made up distinction. People are forced to tear down things they have built all the time. Don't get planning permissions for your extension you can be forced to tear it down. Logically there is no real difference between you telling someone they cannot build X on their land and them being forced to tear it down if they build it anyway. Anything that you want someone to do through zoning et al, is backed by the threat of violence and destruction. You pointed out a whole bunch of other examples where people are indeed forced to do something by law. Wearing seatbelts, having insurance if you want to drive, submitting to lawful arrest, on and on and on.
I'm not saying you should be forced to tear down your house, I am simply pointing out that if you demand a say over what people can build (and therefore what will be torn down if they are in violation) then the only thing stopping them doing the same to you is support. This is essentially the Libertarian argument, that people should be able to build what they want on land they own. But if you demand a say in what can be built on others land, then you are also opening up yourself for others to be able to regulate what you do.
And just to clarify, I think this is fine, I think that is how society works, interlocking rings of having to submit to others will even on your own land. My point is that once you have accepted that (as you appear to have, and I have!) then trying to say "It only applies to people building X, not demanding we tear down Y" is logically incoherent because limiting people to building X must have an enforcement mechanism of tearing down Y if they build it anyway. And once that is accepted, logically it should also apply where zoning is changed or the government as the will of the people decide they want a railway to go through your house and force you to sell it. Because you have already admitted that the people who live there are allowed to set exactly what you can and cannot do with your land despite the fact it is privately owned.
Either your land is inviolate or it is not. If it isn't then you must submit to the will of the people. And given you want others to submit to the will of the people and not build a condo next door, you do not have a logical leg to stand on if your home was rezoned or it was decided it to be more important for some other use. If you think it is ok for you and 499 neighbors to not allow a condo to be built next door, then it is also ok if 500 of your neighbors decide they want a railway station where your house is. Sure they should compensate you, but the will of the people has spoken. A halfway house that allows you to demand a condo be torn down, but does not allow others to demand your house to be torn down is the essence of NIMBYISM.
Either accept your principles or admit is is simply self-interest. Which again is fine. It is perfectly permissible to want laws that that benefit you! I do! But I must also then admit it is ok for others to want laws that favor them, for no other reason.
It is absolutely self interest. I believe I said this in the very first post I made.
People should be allowed to advocate for their interests. This means individuals, neighborhoods, towns, states, and countries.
We have different definitions of coherence. You even made the point here. The people being forced to tear something down that was built illegally is different than changing the laws, then forcing them to tear down something which was legal.
Can you find any examples of what you’re describing? A law changes and then homeowners had to tear down their (previously legal) homes?
There are many, many, many routine cases of people being fined for building illegal structures, while I’m sure there are some examples of buildings that escaped a grandfather clause, I suspect that they are extremely rare.
I have searched and found no examples of what you’re describing, but of course many many many many examples which follow the logic im laying out here.
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