site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   30494 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 12, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Very small thing I saw today. The claim is that people are not really moving out of NY/CA/WA/DC because of housing, presumably trying to implicitly support the general zeitgeist that there's nothing wrong with extremely restrictive housing policies. Instead, it's just jobs being in different locations that is causing people to move.

...like, sure, jobs are probably always going to be a major factor, if not the major factor, but I couldn't help looking at their chart and think that their category selection is just bad. To my eye, it looks like 'For cheaper housing', 'Other housing reason', 'Wanted new or better housing', 'To establish own household', and 'Wanted to own home, not rent' are all categories that are basically subcategories of "Housing". Much more minor, I could potentially see an argument for 'For easier commute', 'Wanted a better neighborhood', and 'Foreclosure or eviction' being lumped into a general "Housing" category.

Of course, I would also think that 'Other job-related reason' and 'To look for work or lost job' could potentially be lumped in a more general "Jobs" category, and eyeballing the chart, I think a general "Jobs" category would still beat out a general "Housing" category. I think this is probably right, and jobs are probably still a stronger driver than housing, but I can't help but think if we rolled these larger categories together, the visual impact of the chart would be much different. It would be "Jobs" and "Housing" as the two absolutely dominant categories, with "Housing" not looking as far behind "Jobs" as it does here.

If the housing supply is heavily constrained, then the number of people living in a place will be mostly determined by the size of that housing supply, not the economic conditions. An increase in the demand for labour would just push rents up to counteract the increase in wages, while a decrease in labour demand would do the opposite. Only if wages fell so low that people didn't want to live there even with rents near zero could the population be determined by the labour demand.

If we're doing thought experiments, then I think you're missing some flexibility. Black markets and underground behavior are a typical result of heavy constraints by governments. So, while the number of units may be considered essentially fixed in your model, you'd probably see people packing 2, 4, 8, 12 people to a unit. Which, whaddya know, I feel like I've seen stories about that sorta thing going on.

But of course, that's kind of an extreme model, and I'm not really sure what your actual point is.

My point is that in places with restrictive housing policies, the population is not much affected by the availability of jobs.

For all the flak he gets, Hayek does get it right with his general argument in Road to Serfdom. Historically, the tendency of the interventionist is never to question the efficiency of his intervention but always and forever to attempt to force more of the world to comply with his desired ends.

We see it here: the problem isn't that restrictive zoning makes business not viable in that area, but that other areas where this is not the case are allowed to exist.

but that other areas where this is not the case are allowed to exist.

Where did you see this argued by Aziz?

Nowhere. The description isn't one of argument, but of a general way of thinking. Hayek's entire point in his book, which the title describes, is that you don't need to overtly argue for more power to slip into totalitarianism. It naturally comes about from the necessary interventions required by the effects of prior interventions.

I can’t imagine that the average Hayek enjoyer feels much better about Effective Altruists…

I don't see why. You'd have a point about AI safety and the related topics, but on the face of it EA is as neoliberal as one can possibly get. They're using private money to enact private ends and are very much concerned about second order effects.

You could have a more stern argument that the very tendency of dogooding walks us on the deleterious path that Hayek describes, but he doesn't make this argument, good Liberal that he is. You'll have to reach to the Anarchists for that one.

Which anarchists? I confess to not reading enough theory, so my reference classes come largely from lived experience and the occasional youtube explainer. Most of the anarchists I know are dogooders but with respect to local phenomena. They want to uplift crows and each other and build families and community metalworking shops and spread self-sufficiency and so on. Basically my anarchist friends are Doerspace Dogooders whereas my EA frenemies are Imperial Dogooders.

We are in the context of Hayek, so I am specifically referring to right wing anarchism which funnily enough includes Proudhon but not any of his successors under the name. There's a really funny story there of how anarchists stole the name from the right and libertarians stole the name from the left. But I digress.

I'm thinking of Rothbard, Hoppe and the like, the people who cut the Gordian knot of dogooding by saying that you shouldn't do it, except in tight knit communities regimented by contracts and philia.

Hayek the liberal doesn't actually think the Nation-State should be destroyed, and in fact thinks it's necessary, so under him you are allowed a bit of imperial dogooding, as a treat. No big government however.

I would imagine that because EAs are doing private charity (and therefore are looking for the best return on their money) they'd be somewhat favorable under the broad umbrella of 'free association'.

That's absolutely wild that someone could look at a chart where reasons 3 through 6 are directly stated as housing and slap a label on that says "few cite cheaper housing" as though they've made a serious point. There are basically three reasons on the whole chart - jobs, housing, and family. Surely the poster is just an amateur shitpoaster though, right?

@AzizSunderji

Analyzing American housing at http://home-economics.us

14 years of Strategy Research at Barclays Investment Bank (credit/macro/EM).

OK, seriously, how do "experts" keep being experts in absolutely nothing?

Maybe the idea behind the choice of answers or presentation was to suppress housing as a factor or push some other factor as more important. First past the post survey manipulation. He is probably an expert in presenting data in order to convince people to form a preferred opinion. 'Strategic Research' at Barclays may even be a pseudo sales role where they just generate research to convince their customers to buy products that Barclay's is selling.

I'm trying not to be overly negative and cynical, but there will always be funding available for anyone with credentials to tell people in power what they want to hear.

A surer sign to divest from Barclays I've never seen.

For easier commute

This one is definitely without argument part of housing. Unless they work in the shittiest part of town, there is assuredly very nice housing close to almost every big job center in NY/CA/WA/DC. Just not affordable ones.

Anyway, "Jobs" was also likely entered as a second order reason for a LOT of the respondants. Like okay, they're moving because they found a job in Texas or Florida; but does the chart distinguish between those who for SOME REASON went looking for a job in TX/FL, and those for whom a too-good-to-ignore job offer in Texas or Florida just fell into their lap? What would likely be the reason someone living in NY/CA/WA/DC would look for a job in TX/FL? For these people we're back to the same chart but without the Jobs category.

I think you can't glean much at all from that chart, particularly about jobs, because it isn't net. There could even be a ton of transfers between NY, DC, WA and CA which drive up the "moved out for job" numbers.

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