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 -
Dear Motte, please help me place my vote.
I really want to support the Democratic Party. Biden's FTC, EPA, and NLRB all seem to be working in economic directions which will make my life and the life of my children better: open markets, cleaner air, better working conditions. I can't help but notice that Trump's previous court picks tend to work against my goals of regulating business, increasing vacation time for my family, and limiting the EPA's attempts to regulate fossil fuels.
But voting blue has some tradeoffs. Some of these I'm aware of, but they are less relevant to me: Immigration is high and crime is up, but immigration and crime are intensely local, and my locality is pretty safe, with lots of rich donors and its own competent police force.
I'm going to have a family soon. I would like my child to be able to enjoy a carefree childhood, without needles in the parks and bullies in the schools, and without the chance that they are brainwashed into values that won't give me grandchildren.
But then things happen which force me to reevaluate and acknowledge that I cannot support the Democratic party. For example, this exchange during the VP debate (Transcript from Matt Taibbi):
Matt makes the argument that Walz got the crowded theater analogy backwards, but even more than that what rings alarm bells in my head is the phrase "Or hate speech."
What do you mean hate speech isn't protected by the first amendment? How do you think the market of ideas is going to work?
This exchange was the last straw for me, and convinced me that, however much it may harm my short-term personal interests, I cannot cast a ballot for Walz and the group of people who think like him. No matter how shitty life might get without the EPA or FTC working in my best interest, it will get much more shitty, much faster if donors to the Democratic party (NPR listeners?) get to define contrarian thought as "hate speech".
So here are my options for presidential tickets:
Any ideas who has the most "Grey Tribe" values and best policies?
Important issues to me, in order of importance as far as I can tell:
Edit: formatting of candidate list
When everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. Pick your 2 priorities. 1 short term, 1 long term. Dump everything else. Then pick which matter more. Short or long term. and roll with it.
How I'm thinking about it:
With the supreme court stable & a post-woke zeitgeist, Dems can't move the needle on strongly enshrined freedoms. This will be a 1 term president, with a half-term before mid-terms to get anything done. It won't affect long term change. YIMBYism has finally gained momentum and can have quick impact. So short term it is.
For national elections, I wouldn't waste my breath on a 3rd candidate. Pick a tent. Everything else is theater.
I'd reluctantly vote for Dems in nationals. And then vote for the YIMBYiest (pro housing, clean streets) local candidate, irrespective of their leaning. Couple of years ago, Ann Davidson in Seattle was the right candidate despite being Republican. But in SF, don't think there are any good right leaning candidates.
I really don't see how this is the case. Long-term democratic cities are notorious for having draconian planning regulations. When I lived in SF, I couldn't even add an internal door inside my own house as a noise barrier without applying for a variance. And the criminal worship on team blue is just out of control. The number one issue in the way of restoring cities is that people, and especially people with children, just don't feel safe.
The cities need a committed reformist movement, probably within the Democratic party, since their policies have shut out people with children who vote Republican from living in urban areas. But on the national level, it's hard to see how the better option is the party of BLM, leading with a candidate who endorsed the riots.
I'm sure there are a ton of exceptions and caveats, but this is the rough shape of things in my mind: If you're concerned about building more, then the two major parties may have opposite effects depending on whether you're talking about the local level or higher levels. Locally, conservatives who favor less regulation and more individual freedom will tend to lead toward allowing more building. But we also have a problem of most municipal governments already being overly restrictive with their zoning codes and regulations, and progressives seem to be more willing to use power at the state and national levels to incentivize/force municipal governments to allow more building.
Progressive implementation of the policies will not be as advertised however. You wont get new housing in the city or near the urban core, instead you will get subsidized housing foisted onto suburbs that are being made to heel ala the NJ Mt. Laurel doctrine (see Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Mount Laurel Township ). This pattern has been repeatedly seen in progressive states. The goal of such policies is to make the city itself expensive and rich and less violent while foisting the worst of it on people who explicitly moved away from the violence, thus ending those communities repeat as people flee.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not sure how you draw this conclusion when the modal Democrat controlled state is California, a state renown for the impossibility of building anything, and rent control schemes sabotaging housing supply over decades. Compared with nominally Republican controlled Texas and Florida where building is cheap, easy and plentiful.
The incentives faced by legislators at the municipal vs state vs national levels are different, and the incentives faced by blue politicians in a blue state are different than those faced by blue politicians in a red state.
My ideal political alignment is purple-purple-purple (municipal, national, state), but since it's impossible to live in a red city in a blue state I'm happy enough living in a blue city in a red state in a purple nation. I could probably tolerate living in a blue city in a blue state in a red nation. I would soon grow to despise living in a blue city in a red state in a red nation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link