site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32069 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 31, 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.

24
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So it’s really the parents tyrannizing the workers

It's the law of supply and demand that is the engine here. The value of goods and services is determined conclusively by the intersection of supply and demand, and that is as true of labor as it is of anything else. No one is tyrannized by earning only what their labor is worth. The tyranny inheres in permitting collusive behavior in the labor market (unions, organized strikes) to inflate the cost of labor above what it is worth. Preventing the strike averts the union's attempted tyranny over school children, parents and taxpayers.

If janitors aren't being paid enough for our sensibilities, then by all means supplement their income with the welfare state, but apply it evenly to everyone who isn't being paid enough, not just for those lucky enough to be able to hold schoolchildren hostage to their demands.

I can’t see a way to defend abolishing public sector unions

Hopefully my comment provides such a defense.

Isn't a limiting factor of unions' ability to bargain the employer's cost of firing everyone, and then hiring and training new employees? If the unions were to argue (without caving) for a crazy amount, like one million dollars per year per member, then it would be more cost-effective to replace the entire work force. It doesn't seem like it is possible for union members to inflate the cost of their labor far above what it is worth (cost of training could make paying an inflated salary preferred in the short-term). Unless there are laws about companies firing their entire workforce/an entire union, which there could be (maybe in France, I've heard they have strong laws supporting unions) but I am ignorant about laws surrounding unions.

I agree that there are limits to what a union can extort above the clearing wage in a free labor market, but limited extortion is still extortion.

It seems strange to use the word "tyrannizing" in the context of the government voiding constitutional rights, but having it apply to the ones whose rights are being violated

Is it actually a constitutional right at all if the constitution provides a "notwithstanding clause" that explicitly permits the government to violate it? I would argue that it isn't. At most it's a violation of norms.

Because this specific right isn't a real one, its a privilege. A right is something you can do as a human being as a result of existing. There is no right to be a government schoolteacher who is paid, because that requires dozens of prerequisites that cannot be assumed.

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