site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   26076 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 4, 2023

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Well from my perspective, for starters. Is that your perspective then, a free market perspective? Because that wasn't the impression I got from any of your other posts. Other posts I've read of yours gave me the impression you would oppose the exploitation of people living in poverty so Americans can keep their suvs and dollar cheeseburgers.

Also I recall a different response the last time America got a bunch of cheap laborers and gave them just enough to make them better off than they would have been in their home nation.

I am a neo-liberal with authoritarian leanings i would say.

I think exploitation often depends on whether the people being exploited are happy with it.

Having said that i am also sympathetic to the idea that neo-liberal free markets need to be directed and regulated by the state. I think off shoring manufacturing has caused a lot of hardship for working class Americans in the Rust Belt et al.

So probably my position would be importing cheap labourers is ok as long as they are treated reasonably well and are themselves happy with their wages, which i guess is close to the free market position, or comparative advantage. But that manufacturing should be on-shored for the good of the American populace even though that will also raise prices, because the impact on poor Americans is disproportionate.

So I guess, let market forces reign but with a heavy state hand regulating them, for an optimum balance of economic and human thriving.

I would be on board with this if we weren't talking about illegal, undocumented, non-citizens. I would actually be ok with indentured servitude if it was between consenting adults. But the system as it stands seems almost designed to be abused.

Sure, some kind of easy legal immigration for low paid workers would probably be better. But I don't see that being politically feasible currently.

So probably my position would be importing cheap labourers is ok as long as they are treated reasonably well and are themselves happy with their wages, which i guess is close to the free market position, or comparative advantage.

I'd go so far as to say none of that is necessary, if the laborer knows what they're getting into.

I'd hope I count as a skilled worker, but I can also accept "cheap", since my wages in the UK would be a pittance compared to the US, an electrician in the US can easily make triple what a junior doctor does in the former. Further, I'm not remotely happy with said salary as provided by a monopsony employer, and I think calling the conditions NHS doctors labor under as "treated well" to be a farce.

None of that prevents me from leaving, I still consider it a step up, albeit a modest one, from being a doctor in India.

I'm also entirely OK with less skilled workers, such as those in construction or domestic care, who go to places with less than stellar rights and conditions like the Middle East from even less stellar, not even planetary, conditions as found in the Indian subcontinent. Would it be nice if they were paid better and treated better? Sure, but believe me that the silent majority will accept that as a reasonable tradeoff when it means they make 5 to 10 times what they could back home, thus having actual savings while sending remittances back home.

I'd know, I was one of the doctors at a Qatari Visa Center, and there were plenty of people who were eager to resume their posts after their visas expired and they had to come back. I'm sure many of them were mislead by touts about how cushy it was there, but they're not the norm.

In other words, as long as people make the tradeoff with a decent level of insight, and ideally it's a step up from where they began, I can hardly begrudge them their movements.

So I guess, let market forces reign but with a heavy state hand regulating them, for an optimum balance of economic and human thriving.

One of the reasons why I don't call myself an outright Libertarian despite being very sympathetic to that position is that I see clear utility from having states around to do things that the free market doesn't (as well as fuck things up, but my position is that we should find where we can maximize benefits and minimize downsides from having both).

Especially in matters of national security, you need to have a big stick to prevent companies from selling out or doing end-runs, such as Nvidia after the executive order banning export of high-end GPUs to China.

Sadly, while I sometimes wish otherwise, governments are usually good to have around, not that I'd mind less of it in many places.

I actually have sympathy for Libertarians myself. I think their positions are generally logical, consistent and principled. Unfortunately much like with communism, i don't think their ideas will actually work in practice with actual people.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats