site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  3yr ago (text post)   34300 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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

but shouldn't we want land to be controlled by the people who can create the most value on it

No more than we should want cars to be controlled by the people who can create the most value using them.

Well let's imagine cars were finite. There were only X many cars in the United States. But, in the places where people need them, there aren't enough to go around. In that scenario, it seems totally reasonable to place a tax on car usage, in order to ensure our limited supply of cars are being used optimally, by tradesmen, rural dwellers, and commuters with no alternative etc. rather than be people who could be taking the train, going on joyrides etc. In a world where cars are finite like land, it seems totally reasonable to encourage productive use of them.

Everything's finite. So now you've re-invented central planning.

Everything is not finite in the way land is finite. There isn't a number X of cars that can be produced, and will only ever be able to be produced.

I think the word you're looking for is "fixed".

Why not? I think it would be better for cars to be controlled by say, families, or people with long commutes, as opposed to students or people living in cities, who would get less use out of them. This isn't a hard principle - I'm sure there are plenty of individuals in either situation who might get more or less value out of owning a car, depending on their circumstances.

By definition it's best for things to go to the people that will best use them. But there are issues with the distribution process as well as vast second-order effects. A few problems off the top of my head:

  1. Who is distributing these cars and what is their criteria? What kind of overhead does the distribution process have? Surely there will be many mistakes made if we know anything about the government.

  2. What are the effects on incentives? Many people only work because they want to buy nice cars. How will economic productivity and mental health be impacted?

  3. What are the effects on existing markets? Vast markets (dozens of billions of dollars) exist just to get people from place to place--Uber, doordash, taxis, etc. Not to mention car companies who are now basically selling cars to the government rather than to people.

  4. Is there potential for corruption? Why spend a billion dollars on marketing when you can spend $100 million bribing the right official for 10x the effect?

Anyways there's a VAST difference between wanting a particular state of affairs, and wanting a government policy that you believe will lead to that state.

I didn't say anything about government policy.

Oh, come on man. The context is obvious, and earlier you were talking about the government specifically leasing land out, so it's not exactly a logical leap. Nobody's going to take the fight to your motte that "people who will use resources best will use resources best."

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