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 -
If you were going to increase the birth rate how would you do it?
There's lots of suggestions, most of them bad. For example, Scandinavian countries have been touted as "doing it right" by offering generous perks to families such as paid family leave. But these efforts, despite outrageous costs, have done little or nothing to stem the falling birth rate. Sweden's fertility rate is a dismal 1.66 as of 2020, and if trends hold, the rate among ethnic Swedes is far lower.
I think that, like everything, deciding to marry and have a family comes down to status.
Mongolia is a rare country that has managed to increase its fertility rate over the last 20 years, from about 2.1 children per women in 2004, to about 2.7 today. This feat is more impressive considering the declines experienced worldwide during the same period. It's doubly impressive considering the fertility rate in neighboring Inner Mongolia (China) is just 1.06!
What is Mongolia doing right? Apparently, they are raising the status of mothers by giving them special recognition and status.
https://x.com/MoreBirths/status/1827418468813017441
In Georgia (the country), something similar happened when an Orthodox patriarch started giving special attention to mothers with 3 children:
https://x.com/JohannKurtz/status/1827070216716874191
Now, raising the status of mothers is more easily said than done. But I think it's possible, especially in countries with a high degree of social cohesion like in East Asia. In Europe, a figure like the King of Netherlands could personally meet and reward mothers. In the United States, of course, this sort of thing would be fraught as any suggestion coming from the right might backfire due to signalling. Witness the grim specter of the vasectomy and abortion trucks at the DNC. But the first step to fixing a problem is to adequately diagnose the cause. To me, the status explanation is more compelling (and fixable) than any other suggestion I've seen.
I stopped worrying about potential dysgenic effects of boosting fertility among lower classes: if elite overproduction is a thing we should be worried about, low PMC fertility is a feature, not a bug.
One thing that's required is a massive propaganda campaign:
I say propaganda, but this doesn't have to be outright censorship, measures like the National Minimum Drinking Age Act can be used to goad companies into compliance.
The propaganda campaign must be supplemented with additional economic measures:
I have to wonder at the Venn diagram between 1) thinking TFR is a problem and 2) belief in the efficacy of diverse/inclusive/woke media. Not valence, efficacy. There can’t be many who think replacing the Black hobbits with pregnant ones would have made Rings of Power tolerable.
More generally, the policies you describe form a continuum. At the close end, we certainly could bully companies into producing some Very Special Episodes about resisting the urge to buy a boat. They’ll run directly into the cultural antibodies developed by every other time the government has tried something similar.
At the far end, Hollywood and friends could in theory adopt this wholesale, saturating the media environment. Make
vitalismbirtherismnatalism as universal as girl power. No, as ubiquitous as punching Nazis. Maybe that would have a chance of connecting with audiences. Except to reach that point, you already have to have won. Not just over the culture producers, but the consumers who pay for tickets and subscriptions. Such a media blitz isn’t the cause; it’s the effect.What is practical won’t be effective, and what might be effective is wildly impractical.
Efficacy for what? They were always justified with trying to increase tolerance / reduce ism, but they seem almost custom engineered to do the opposite, so how do we measure efficacy?
Then there's also the fact that bad propaganda also exists. Eastern commies were quite bad at it, for example, so they had to make up for the shortfall of hearts and minds with more conventional methods.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link