site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   30509 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 6, 2025

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

From an economics standpoint, the toll has been a big success. Consider, for a minute, the perspective of a person who is willing to wait an hour in traffic, but is not willing to wait 15 minutes plus pay $9.

The improvements, if they indeed exist, have not been that great. More like 5 minutes than 45.

This will increase traffic outside the zone as much as it decreases it in the zone.

This appears to have happened. Traffic on some routes have gotten worse (based on the same data showing improvement on other routes, so all very preliminary)

It's pretty much a money grab for the MTA. The various unions will see the extra money and go on strike until it's diverted to them. No subway improvement will result, nor will congestion materially decline. Drivers will be pissed that they have to pay more and MTA union workers will be happier.

Congestion has already materially declined.

You mean because a few chosen routes show 5-6 minute reduction in travel times? On the first Sunday of the year, compared to other Sundays? Come on, at least demonstrate a little skepticism.

Sure, let's be skeptical. Let's look at the data. Flipping through some arbitrary affected commute routes (that start from outside the zone and go into it) on weekdays, there's a notable difference in commute times before and after congestion pricing.

Let's come at this the other way. What evidence would convince you that congestion pricing reduces commute times?

Flipping through some arbitrary affected commute routes on weekdays, there's a notable difference in commute times before and after congestion pricing.

The difference is sometimes in the wrong direction (e.g. "Hugh L. Carey" Tunnel, FDR Drive) . You're going to need a lot more than a week of data in any case.

So what evidence would convince you?

Most people account for 15-30 minutes of bad luck when they commute by car. So you would probably need to show that kind of reduction, and it would need to be consistent, for people to consider it a successful program.

I currently think its mostly a money grab. The trains will not be improved. That is obvious.

I can totally buy that the trains will not be improved. However, increased prices leading to less consumption is a reasonable prior I think.

But how is that an improvement? It is a classic example of tradeoffs. For the people paying the fee because they think it is superior to the time spent (or have no other option) it is worth it, for everyone else it is a detriment. Less people utilizing a certain street isn't some sort of pareto improvement. If it was empty streets would be the best streets of all.

More comments

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