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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
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.
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?
OK, seriously, how do "experts" keep being experts in absolutely nothing?
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link