site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   29676 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 18, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Canada has a lot of open space. To be blunt.

Which parts of Canada do you want to see fill up with more people? Which regions do you think are below their potential and should dramatically expand?

To be clear, this is a classic gotcha question, because I don't think most immigration proponents think all that hard about the specifics of what they're trying to change -- but, at the same time, I mean it sincerely. If you have an argument that Saskatchewan could easily sustain another million people, or that the Canadian shield has rich potential with modest and inexpensive terraforming, I'd like to hear it. My impression has always been that Canada has a lot of open space because nobody wants to live there, because there is very little to be produced in these places. I'd love to hear a different story.

Toronto proper (not even the GTA) would have 17 million people if it were as dense as Paris.

Ok, sure, maybe Toronto can grow, but that's not really filling the open spaces of Canada.

Why wouldn't the open spaces he able to be filled?

You can't just build anywhere as if any space will do. Which space? Prairies, forests, marshland? Is there arable land to grow crops to feed these new people? Or clear land that can support roads to ship food in?

There is a lot of open space in Canada, but a lot of it isn't fit for living. Canadian winter gets prohibitively expensive, especially if you build much further North than where Canada has been built. The Canadian shield runs through middle, making much of Canada's open spaces poor for living.

But, there is a lot of open space in Canada, so I could believe there is a lot of untapped potential. I'm not trying to be unfair here: if you want to bring in millions of immogrants, you need to have an idea of where to put them.

Food can be transported, so you don't need arable land. And there's a lot of arable land anyway. If the land isn't cleared, it can be cleared.

Canadian winter gets prohibitively expensive,

Clearly not, since people live in very cold parts of the country. If Winnipeg exists, then people can build in the ample open spaces of southern Ontario, let alone in the rest of Manitoba.

if you want to bring in millions of immogrants, you need to have an idea of where to put them.

As I said, they could easily fit in the GTA, let alone the many other cities we have and similar environments that haven't been built up.

Which space? Prairies, forests, marshland?

Wherever the developers find building to be profitable, once the onerous zoning regulations are lifted.

Is there arable land to grow crops to feed these new people?

Food can be imported from elsewhere. We are living in the age of containerized cargo transport.

Or clear land that can support roads to ship food in?

I'm sure that the developers and/or governments can buy from farmers sufficient land for roadbuilding.

There is a lot of open space in Canada, but a lot of it isn't fit for living.

Taken together, Wikipedia's maps of climate and population density strongly suggest that the unfilled habitable area remains quite sizable. See also Google Maps.

Vancouver's housing could be made cheaper by allowing single-family houses to be built in the empty "Green Zone" (1 2).

The idea that Vancouver-area residents should suffer the least affordable housing in Canada in order to preserve rural open space in a province that has millions of hectares of open space and some of the lowest population densities in the world would be comical if its results were not so tragic.

rural open space

AKA 'food producing areas' -- the Fraser River delta is fantastically fertile, it would make way more sense to plop the immigrants up in Prince George or somewhere (Rupert if they just like rainy ports I guess) and plough the condos under to grow veggies.

Worth noting that this is true for every city and town in the province: the ALR is an absolutely crooked law and it applies almost everywhere. Sure, 50 years ago it might not have been as big a deal to permanently ban all development in cities that hadn't yet grown to need that land, but they do now, and I don't think that unless the province undergoes a dramatic political shakeup it's going anywhere fast, much like California's Prop 13 (for the same reasons).

Fun quote from a Supreme Court opinion refusing to overturn Prop. 13:

Petitioner and amici argue with some appeal that Article XIIIA frustrates the "American dream" of home ownership for many younger and poorer California families. They argue that Article XIIIA places start up businesses that depend on ownership of property at a severe disadvantage in competing with established businesses. They argue that Article XIIIA dampens demand for and construction of new housing and buildings. And they argue that Article XIIIA constricts local tax revenues at the expense of public education and vital services.

Time and again, however, this Court has made clear in the rational basis context that the "Constitution presumes that, absent some reason to infer antipathy, even improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democratic process and that judicial intervention is generally unwarranted no matter how unwisely we may think a political branch has acted". Certainly, California's grand experiment appears to vest benefits in a broad, powerful, and entrenched segment of society, and, as the Court of Appeal surmised, ordinary democratic processes may be unlikely to prompt its reconsideration or repeal. Yet many wise and well intentioned laws suffer from the same malady. Article XIIIA is not palpably arbitrary, and we must decline petitioner's request to upset the will of the people of California.

My impression has always been that Vancouver home prices are kept high by investment from China and other countries (which is basically infinite and totally inelastic). Granted, there is also a lot of green space that could be turned into housing, and a lot of room to build up. (I suspect strongly that Portland and Seattle will go the same way.)

Anything else? Granted we could probably fit a million or more people into Vancouver, but that's only one small part of Canada.

The investment may be virtually infinite but it's very elastic--they are investing because it seems like a good investment. They'll invest elsewhere if the quality of that investment declines (perhaps due to increased housing supply)

The last time I looked into it, many years ago, Canadian real estate was a prime investment for Chinese elites looking to sock money away outside China. Perhaps the calculus haa changed, but it would take a lot of new housing stock to sate this demand.

It appears that similar land-wasting efforts are active in the Toronto area.

Created by legislation passed by the Government of Ontario in 2005, the Greenbelt is considered a prevention of urban development and sprawl on environmentally sensitive land in the province. According to the Greenbelt Foundation, the Greenbelt includes 2,000,000 acres (810,000 ha) of land. That includes 721,000 acres (292,000 ha) of protected wetlands, grasslands, and forests.

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