site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   24828 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 6, 2024

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.

You keep saying this, and not addressing what I said about the mechanisms of how the US would end up in a situation of scrambling to avoid default.

Which point in that list was wrong (following "that is:")?

What is the actual mechanism by which the US can keep borrowing? Who, specifically, wants US dollars, and will keep buying up our debt indefinitely, even as it continues to grow to be a larger and larger share of US and world GDP?

Instead of just giving a, "we'll be fine, someone will stop it," as you have us sleepwalk into disaster.

There is no mechanism. You don't get it. There are no "rules", people and countries do what they can. The USA is best placed in the whole world, monetarily and militantly, there is no end to what they will use that for. It doesn't have to "make sense" or "be fair". No one is going to stop it, because there is no one to do so. There is also no disaster to sleepwalk into, the USA will just keep winning.

Quit with the magical thinking.

There is always a mechanism. It might change, be fluid, sure. But somewhere, somehow, if the US wants to do stuff, it needs to get people willing to do stuff. And there always, always, must be some mechanism by which that's happening, some way or ways to motivate people to put labor and materials toward whatever it wants.

What I'm asserting is that the current method (pay for it with dollars, using promises of future dollars in order to get enough dollars to cover what taxation isn't sufficing for) is being done in an unsustainable fashion, and will have to stop, or otherwise be revised eventually.

I was saying that that problem would eventually be remedied by printing money, which should have the effects I discussed (A worldwide shift away from dollars, to some extent).

(Heavy taxation or cutting spending are also possible, but probably harder to get through the political process.)

So what are you suggesting instead? You keep bringing up force. Are you suggesting that we'll impose a tribute on other countries? That's possible. (Though definitely a big departure from now, when we give countries a ton of money, instead of exacting it)

Edit: If innovation in AI or something causes sufficiently large US-centered economic growth to increase tax revenue enough to pay for things, that could also work, provided it's not also accompanied with corresponding spending increases.

Edit 2: If the US does impose tribute, ancient Athens might be a cool comparison.

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