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 -
The DOGE cuts were purely performative. Anyone trying to cut the federal deficit without tackling the absurd ballooning elder care costs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid portions that go to elders) isn't serious. Science is an extremely tiny slice of the federal budget, but it happens to be one where the effects of cuts won't show up for a decent amount of time. This is in contrast to something like tariffs, where Trumpian buffoonishness is almost immediately apparent in a number of ways.
Jewish nuclear researchers that fled Nazi Germany helped produce the atomic bomb. I'm not saying the current crop of researchers are doing stuff that's that serious, but having scientists flee your broken sectarian country is generally a bad thing.
This is such a fucking weird angle, I don't understand why progressives keep deploying it. No, they were explicitly what the people asked for - an end to stupid frivolous spending. Not an end to social security and Medicare. Nobody asked for that. They just wanted to stop the USG from spending American tax dollars to fund ridiculous frivolous bullshit like communist rap albums and teaching lesbian farmers about sustainability.
And considering your position on Trump, the idea of you wanting him to go after Medicare and social security is confusing. It's like you actually don't give a shit about the economy, you just want Trump to do more big things "where Trumpian buffoonishness is almost immediately apparent in a number of ways", because the only thing you care about is being outraged and outrage at trumpian buffoonishness often has a curious way of dying out with the start of a new media cycle.
It’s a position of inconsistency. The biggest fish in the Waste/fraud/abuse category are in welfare and entitlements. In fact at least a two-thirds of our budget goes to mandatory entitlements, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, without getting into welfare payments. To talk about cutting the waste in government spending without touching those things is inconsistent. It’s like having a family budget, and saying you’ll make big changes to protect yourself from too much debt, and never getting around to asking if you’re spending too much on housing. No, that’s not serious. It’s not something as inessential as the makeup buying, but if you’re really needing to cut spending, it all has to be on the table.
This is very common, though?
Hence all the back and forth about "you're accusing me of eating too much avocado toast, but I can't rent a tiny apartment for less than $3,000 a month." Or people with 30 year mortgages -- they aren't usually just going to sell their home and move to a cheap house in the rust belt.
In the case of home economies, the solution is often more earners -- move in with their SO, crowd more roommates in, AirBNB the casita. In the US economy, the main thing coming up is increased automation, and I'm a bit surprised that after hearing so much about US economic policy changes, and so much about AI driven economic changes looming, that there seems to be so little overlap in the conversations as of yet. Or perhaps I've just missed them?
I mean taking in another roommate, renting out an unused room, or the like are dealing with the cost of housing in that example. But I guess it’s a poor choice for the situation. My point is that about half or more of our federal budget goes towards entitlements enacted decades ago when our demographics were vastly different and we steadfastly refuse to adjust them for the reality we’re in now. Sure, in 1960, we could probably afford to have seniors retire at 65 and we had a glut of 20-30 something people entering their prime earning years. Especially since most people didn’t live much past 70. Now, we have retirees drawing out their SS, Medicare and so on for something like 20 years at a time when there are not nearly as many young people to prop up the system. Seniors comfort themselves that they’re only getting what the6 put in, but really if you live 20 years post retirement and get colas on top of your earned benefits, then you’re taking more than you ever put in. And we’ve refused to do anything substantial about it. The retirement age, if we were to keep it in line with what the age of retirement was in 1950 would be nearly 80.
Another way to put this (and more important, given that Medicare is a bigger problem than Social Security.) is that retiring people today mostly paid for 1970s-2000s healthcare and expect 2020s healthcare in return.
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