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.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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'.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link