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 -
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What is the difference between a good justification and a selfish reason except framing and intellectual charity?
They are in sync here. Your position violates not only kant, but utilitarianism, the golden rule, most moral systems known to man.
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.
Ok, so what are those reasons? You're just blanket assuming one side in a generic conflict is in the right.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
That is a cost. If I install a solar collector in geosynchronous orbit over your house, have I not done you a serious harm?
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 options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link