site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32882 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 10, 2022

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.

23
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This strikes me as rationalists rationalizing their own class self-interest. The same way EA just so happens to only support democrat politicians, rationalism coincidentally just so happens to work out extremely well for the types of people that are rationalists. Easy to be YIMBY when you are 25 and living in a rented apartment in San Francisco.

If you try to find out which thoughts are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.

Is there even a principled defense of nimbyism, or is that sort of accusation all you have? If pressed, nimbys will frequently confess to hypocrisy and naked self-interest. But yimbys don’t need to, because the case for yimby is easy, as you say : If everyone nimbys, nothing ever gets built. Rents and corn should be cheap, their prices should be at open to competition, not controlled by a cartel.

naked self-interest.

Why isn't that good enough? Do you think the YIMBYs expect to be harmed by their policies?

How can it be good enough? Obviously it is in my interest to receive money from the government. Should that be policy?

The public thing is about the common good. If you are harmed by a policy, you have to prove that you are harmed more than others benefit. Nimbys don't seem to 'act only according to that maxim whereby they can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law'(because nothing would be built), and that's not a good sign. Whether yimbis also have selfish reasons on top of good justifications is irrelevant.

How can it be good enough? Obviously it is in my interest to receive money from the government. Should that be policy?

Because it's good enough for the YIMBYs? Why is it good for them to demand policies that serve their naked self-interest, but bad for other people to do so? The fact that those "other people" have already invested significant effort and capital into their backyards, as it were, seems like a powerful argument for defaulting to their preferences. In any case, this argument seems like a sleight of hand in which we carefully obscure that both factions have a self-interest at play.

The public thing is about the common good. If you are harmed by a policy, you have to prove that you are harmed more than others benefit. Nimbys don't seem to 'act only according to that maxim whereby they can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law'(because nothing would be built), and that's not a good sign.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to invoke utilitarianism and Kant in the same breath. Kant is anti-utility; his deployment is inherently suspect.

Whether yimbis also have selfish reasons on top of good justifications is irrelevant.

What is the difference between a good justification and a selfish reason except framing and intellectual charity?

If NIMBYs NIMBY at scale then it’s a problem.

What do we do then?

(My solution: NIMBY labor and re-education camps)

I'm sorry, but you don't get to invoke utilitarianism and Kant in the same breath.

They are in sync here. Your position violates not only kant, but utilitarianism, the golden rule, most moral systems known to man.

Why is it good for them to demand policies that serve their naked self-interest, but bad for other people to do so?

Because they have other reasons than naked self-interest (which again, is just a cheap accusation that can be lobbied against anyone). The self-interest of citizens have to be balanced against each other, and we do this by using the good justifications. When one admits to having no other reason than self-interest, one’s cause is deligitimized.

There’s a dispute between two farmers over ownership of a donkey. The village gathers in the square to hear their cases. The first one says witnesses saw him buy it , he can describe it from memory, that he frequently helps other villagers with it, and so on. The second one replies that he doesn’t care about good justifications, it should be given to him because it is in his self-interest, he doesn’t understand why everyone is so naive, it’s also in the other guy’s self-interest to get the donkey.

Because they have other reasons than naked self-interest (which again, is just a cheap accusation that can be lobbied against anyone).

Ok, so what are those reasons? You're just blanket assuming one side in a generic conflict is in the right.

The self-interest of citizens have to be balanced against each other

Yes, because everyone has the right to advocate for their own self-interest. Failing to recognize that is, as Kant might put it, treating people as mere means rather than ends in themselves.

There’s a dispute between two farmers over ownership of a donkey. The village gathers in the square to hear their cases. The first one says witnesses saw him buy it , he can describe it from memory, that he frequently helps other villagers with it, and so on. The second one replies that he doesn’t care about good justifications, it should be given to him because it is in his self-interest, he doesn’t understand why everyone is so naive, it’s also in the other guy’s self-interest to get the donkey.

In this silly scenario you've concocted to try to prove your point, the first guy is the NIMBY, the established interest with existing skin in the game, who doesn't want to lose sunk costs for existing benefits to some second person whose main justification is "but it would be good for me".

And frankly, even if you devise some second scenario where the utility argument could come down in favor of the second person, it's still valid to not want to eat the costs of externalities for things that benefit other people.

Let’s not confuse the two arguments. Argument A is whether there are ‘good justifications’ for nymbyism, and how they stack up against yimbyism ’s good justifications. I originally asked for nymby’s good justifications, and gave some for yimbyism.

You then refused, said B: good justifications don’t matter, it’s all about self-interest, you don’t need any more reason than that. The donkey story was purely aimed at B.

Do you want to go back to A now, with you giving ‘good justifications’ for nimbys for improving the land etc?

And frankly, even if you devise some second scenario where the utility argument could come down in favor of the second person, it's still valid to not want to eat the costs of externalities for things that benefit other people.

Let’s say it’s a very large benefit to the second person and the rest of society, completely dwarfing the first person’s benefits. Is the first person still justified in refusing to eat the cost? Or, the first person seriously harms other people for a very small personal benefit, still okay? It seems to me you’re arguing for extreme selfishness, like people should never go against their self-interest, no matter the circumstances. Note: this is still argument B.

You're just blanket assuming one side in a generic conflict is in the right.

Well, rampant NIMBYism results in enormous transfers of wealth based merely on who got into an area first (primarily a function of age), massively infringes on private property rights, tremendously stifles any sort of economic development or indeed change of any kind, results in huge negative-sum costs paying lawyers, grants lots of power to the kind of sociopathic busybodies who want to control everything around them, makes moving into economically dynamic cities infeasible for the kind of young workers that they need, cripples economic mobility, and generally enshrines into law the kind of development and transportation (sprawl and cars, respectively) with by far the largest externalities and costs (people dying in car crashes and car/bike or car/pedestrian collisions, pollution, noise, congestion, etc.)

In this silly scenario you've concocted to try to prove your point, the first guy is the NIMBY, the established interest with existing skin in the game, who doesn't want to lose sunk costs for existing benefits to some second person whose main justification is "but it would be good for me".

Have you heard of a thing called "property rights"? The NIMBYs are the second guy, they just already took the donkey and the YIMBYs would like it back.

it's still valid to not want to eat the costs of externalities for things that benefit other people.

NIMBYs are already capturing massive positive externalities due to the increase in the value of their land because other people made their city desirable to live in. To then act like a victim because your house will be slightly shaded by a small apartment block is reminiscent of the story that defines the word chutzpah.

But since you're opposed to externalities, you must also be on board with efforts to ban cars from the city? After all, why should pedestrians and cyclists eat the cost of the noise, danger, and pollution caused entirely for the benefit of drivers?

Well, rampant NIMBYism results in enormous transfers of wealth based merely on who got into an area first (primarily a function of age)

That's not a transfer of wealth, that's just the existence of wealth. Your take here is just reversing causality; NIMBYs want the status quo, YIMBYs are the ones who want a transfer of wealth (to themselves).

massively infringes on private property rights, tremendously stifles any sort of economic development or indeed change of any kind,

Property rights are literally the basis of NIMBY arguments. And note how you acknowledge that point about the status quo versus change? You don't get to just assume that the change you want is a good thing, and you don't get to just handwave away the costs you dump onto others in the process. Maybe it is! Maybe the utilitarian calculation comes down on the YIMBY side! But don't act like this is altruism instead of competing interest groups fighting over their own benefits.

Have you heard of a thing called "property rights"? The NIMBYs are the second guy, they just already took the donkey and the YIMBYs would like it back.

Do you know what property rights are? NIMBYs are the guy who bought the donkey 30 years ago, YIMBYs are the guy who is pissy that he has to carry his own shit, waging a disingenuous rhetoric campaign to steal the donkey.

NIMBYs are already capturing massive positive externalities due to the increase in the value of their land because other people made their city desirable to live in.

See, this is the kind of absurd rhetoric that makes it clear you're not even trying to reason, just doing a tribalism. NIMBYs are the people who are already there, dude. They're the ones who made the area desirable and full of positive externalities. YIMBYs are the ones who want to eat that for their own benefit.

To then act like a victim because your house will be slightly shaded by a small apartment block

That is a cost. If I install a solar collector in geosynchronous orbit over your house, have I not done you a serious harm?

But since you're opposed to externalities, you must also be on board with efforts to ban cars from the city? After all, why should pedestrians and cyclists eat the cost of the noise, danger, and pollution caused entirely for the benefit of drivers?

No, I think the anti-car stuff is mostly the whining of idiot children. Cars are incredibly useful, and I've appreciated the hell out of them in every life phase that wasn't literally on a college campus. But if they bother you that much, feel free to go build your own car-free city. I'll swing by in 30 years to wage a dehumanization campaign against you and ruin the place for my own profit.

More comments

FWIW, I was glad when an apartment building started going up near the place I owned in my previous city.

That isn't an argument in favour of NIMBYism, it just shows that there are lots of unprincipled people. But being unprincipled doesn't actually make you wrong.

The same way EA just so happens to only support democrat politicians

I know it's not the point of this post, but this is not true. EA does back a number of Republican candidates and works actively to get more, they just keep it quieter out of a mix of unpopularity/strategy.

Like who?

Not a great answer, and not what OP was referring to most likely, but from here

While his biggest spending has been on Democratic primaries, he has also contributed directly to Democratic and Republican campaigns alike.

“There have been a lot of times when I have been a bigger supporter of Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. That’s not — that’s not an immovable fact about the world,” [...] “I am legitimately worried about doing things that will make people view me as partisan when it’s not how I feel

The evidence that Bankman-Fried truly wants to be a bipartisan donor is thin — at least in his publicly disclosed spending. Although Bankman-Fried donated directly to a half-dozen Republicans and gave $105,000 to a super PAC that backed Katie Britt, the Republican Senate nominee who won a contested primary in Alabama, it still pales in comparison to the many tens of millions he’s disclosed giving to Democratic candidates and groups

Guarding Against Pandemic has endorsed 22 Democrats and 15 Republicans, a mix of incumbents and first-time candidates.

Messaged you about this - long story short I talked to someone in person who gave me some info but doesn't look like the candidate list is public.

Well that isn't very transparent of EA

Hah EA is not very transparent.

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