site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   28280 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 3, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I've advocated leaning into student loan forgiveness, on the condition that most of the funds are seized from university endowments and heavy taxes on the parties who benefit directly from the loans over the decades.

Or, if that angle somehow does not pass muster, then yeah, federal funds to university get cut until the balance is paid off.

Perhaps even better, if you're forgiving student loans, then also create a one-time tax credit applicable to anyone who successfully paid their loans down WITHOUT forgiveness. And then give a one-time payout to anyone who paid their own way though college out of pocket.

AND then provide some incentive/reward to people who eschewed college and went to trade school or hopped right into the workforce. Just full on jubilee, baby.

Just go absolutely ham on handouts ONCE, and try to shift as much of the 'burden' to the lefties, blue cities, and elites that brought stuff to this point.

And finally, tie the package to a requirement that student loans going forward are eligible for discharge in bankruptcy AND add in that no President can unilaterally discharge any such loans without approval from, say, 2/3 of congress.

You have to actually stitch up the gushing wound up after you've performed the lifesaving procedure.

heavy taxes on the parties who benefit directly from the loans over the decades.

I look forward to this meaning those of us who paid off our loans but are in the wrong industries get hit by this twice and those that didn't and are in the right industries get a double boon.

I look forward to this meaning those of us who paid off our loans but are in the wrong industries get hit by this twice and those that didn't and are in the right industries get a double boon.

The only way you could end up in the "wrong industry" under this policy is if you are actually taking part in the rent-seeking credentialism that these policies are trying to stop - in which case you actually deserve the penalty. But furthermore, keep reading the post - there's a tax credit for those who paid their loans back.

I've advocated leaning into student loan forgiveness, on the condition that most of the funds are seized from university endowments and heavy taxes on the parties who benefit directly from the loans over the decades.

I don't think that the universities with large endowments to raid have many highly indebted students.

Apparently in improv comedy, they have a rule that you can never say "no", you can only say "yes, and".

I feel that politics works the same way. One group comes begging for a handout. You can't say no because then you're the mean bad guy. So you say "yes, and", then give your own group twice as much.

I agree with everything you said. The floodgates have opened and it's time to "yes and" some payouts to actual workers at a rate much higher than we compensated the slackers. And universities should pay for it.

Republicans got the nickname “party of no” for this reason. They’re the only adult in the room when it comes to not spending ourselves into exponentially untenable inflation (aside from a few irrelevant third parties).

They’re the only adult in the room when it comes to not spending ourselves into exponentially untenable inflation (aside from a few irrelevant third parties).

This is a bald-faced lie - the GOP love spending the US into exponentially untenable inflation, they just prefer to do it by throwing tax-payer money into the MIC.

Yes, I’ve heard the “but what about military spending” gotcha plenty. Defense spending is currently the lowest it’s been in over 3 decades by percentages, between 11 and 13%. Socialized medicine and welfare comprise close to 50% of federal spending. And with new proposals to tax unrealized gains gaining momentum, going to war with the federal government over a 2% luxury tax on tea feels quaint by comparison.

The Iraq war came to 1-2 trillion though. That at least puts it (viewed as a single policy) in the same order of magnitude as the "inflation """reduction""" act"

Over how many years?

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