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 -
Grift Upon Grift
A white woman named Shiloh Hendrix took her child to the park.
What happened next is not totally clear. This is the only direct video evidence I could find, since so-called journalists are apparently allergic to providing direct links to original sources for direct evaluation (God forbid they should create a hyperlink to a source containing uncensored slurs I guess). In this video a man accuses Shiloh (who is holding her young child) of calling a black child a racial slur. She tells him that the black child was stealing from her son, and, uh, firmly invites the videographer to go away. Instead, he demands that she say the slur to his face. So she does, several times, and he tells her that the word is "hate speech." In some other places I have seen the video continue as he follows her to her car while continuing to berate her. (If there is actual video of her saying anything at all to the black child, I have not been able to find it.)
According to Shiloh's GiveSendGo,
As I write this, she has received $735,837 in donations, prompting some commentary. She hasn't been charged with any crime yet, but someone is considering it.
The "other side" of the story has been told... inconsistently, I guess. Also from the Yahoo writeup:
Several stories (but not all) mention the supposed autism; some add that the black child had three siblings keeping his parents busy at the time and was therefore unsupervised, explaining his reported misconduct as mere childish curiosity.
Well, hopefully Omar knows the boy's parents; after all, according to another news report Omar is the black child's uncle. Or is this a folksy "every man from Somalia is my uncle" sort of thing? Unclear! Incidentally, Omar was recently charged with felonious sexual misconduct, only to have those charges dropped for unclear reasons. Well, "in the interests of justice," whatever that means in this context:
In fact this doesn't actually state that the charges against Sharmake have been dropped, but everyone seems to think so. Presumably just one more piece of relevant information denied to me by the transformation of facts into culture war ammunition.EDIT: This link shows the documents dropping the charges.In response to Hendrix's GiveSendGo, the Rochester branch of the NAACP opened a GoFundMe and raised about $350,000 before closing it down (apparently at the behest of the black boy's family).
It's difficult to know how much to read between the lines, here, in part because the lines themselves are so blurry. Omar is apparently a single man and possible child sex offender who was filming at least one otherwise-unsupervised child at a public park. His story about how he is connected to the child is inconsistent. Given the current state of American politics with regard to immigration law, a family of Somalians deliberately avoiding the public eye seems well advised, but also raises further questions about broader demographic trends and the impacts of those trends. Meanwhile, Ms. Hendrix's unapologetic utterance of the killing curse has turned into a bit of a financial bonanza for all involved (except, apparently, Omar...).
Of course the culture war angles are attention-grabbing, and the toxoplasma of rage ever present. But at the risk of going full "boo outgroup," can I just say--I really, really hate crowdfunding? It seems like a horrible mistake, a metastasized version of the cancer of social media, virtue signaling with literal dollars that feed nothing but further grift. Regardless of their reasons, I'm thankful to the Somali family for shutting down the NAACP's grifting fundraiser as quickly as they did. I'm gobsmacked that Shiloh has managed to milk three quarters of a million dollars (and counting!) out of being accosted over a minor literal playground scuffle.
I mean, I get it--the money is tempting, and if you aren't getting yours, someone else will be more than happy to scoop it up "on your behalf." Racism is big business, for which the demand vastly outstrips the supply, and overtly slur-slinging white moms are... well, usually they're rapping or something, not dropping the honest-to-God Hard R. And on a child!
...for $750,000, though?
To be completely honest--I was irritated earlier this week because one of my social feeds was inundated with requests for money for some kid who was super sick and then died. Did he not have health insurance? Oh, no, he was insured. Why did he need $50,000 then? Well, his parents had to take some time off work, you know. Didn't they have paid family medical leave? Oh, well, yes, but you know how "incidentals pile up." Burials ain't cheap! And everyone was so heartbroken, because kids are so great! And this kid was great. Just brightened the room and everyone's lives. Obviously $50,000 isn't going to bring him back, or help his parents heal, but at least we can all show our sympathy and support... better than "thoughts and prayers," eh?
So probably I was kind of sensitized to this when I ran across the story of Shiloh and her anonymous (autistic?) antagonist. How many humans live out their lives by, ultimately, convincing lots of other humans to just bankroll them? How much of my frustration with these people boils down to a kind of deep-rooted envy, that I must labor while others take their ease, simply because I do not have a gift for grift?
As a matter of principle, I do not give money via crowdfunding. I don't even use Patreon, much less GoFundMe or GiveSendGo or whatever. I regard it as a moral failing when I see others do so, no matter how apparently worthy the cause. I am prejudiced against the entire enterprise, but I cannot rule out the possibility that it is because I have no expectation of ever benefiting from it--even though this is at least in part because I would feel like a charlatan if I did.
There are about 25,000 GoFundMe fundraisers created per day. My best estimate from scraping GoFundMe is that about half of fundraisers earn exactly $0, and among the remaining half there's a very long tail - perhaps 2,000 fundraisers per year earning $100k+ and 300 per year earning $500k+. Most of those are "little 8 year old Timmy has cancer" not "CW grifting".
Do you also have a deep-rooted envy of lottery winners, because you do not have a gift for sheer dumb luck? Because I'd estimate about 10x as many people make $100k from lotteries than from GoFundMe virality.
It's on the news because it's rare.
I regard both of these as examples of grifting.
Oh, it's much worse than that. I know a lot of people who make a lot of money doing fuck-all. Often, they are active hindrances to things getting done. "Bullshit jobs" and the like--but also many people in education, government, large corporations, et cetera. I'm not even sure "envy" is the right word, exactly, but I'm trying to be open to the possibility that it is just a kind of envy. Except that I don't actually want to be them--I just can't help but wonder why I so often feel the need to work when so many of my fellow humans seem to get by just fine without it.
...so? I'm not sure what conclusion I should draw from that. This may be an extreme case of grifting, but that just makes it helpfully illustrative; I'm annoyed by smaller, more common examples, too.
Does that include the cases in which they actually do need the money to pay Timmy's medical bills? (Edit: and he has a 1% chance of survival without treatment and a 99% chance with)
If so, what, in your opinion, is the ethical path for Timmy's parents?
Being hard-hearted, the ethical path is to accept as members of their community that little children with cancer cannot and should not be the recipient of vast amounts of community support. People of my grandmother’s generation could and did accept that.
The existence of organisations like NICE in the UK also tacitly accepts this fact. One might say, “I’m not going to accept socialist government telling me what care I can obtain for my child,” but one might also say that telling parents that if they raise 500,000 dollars it will increase their child’s survival rate slightly is both futile and cruel, and preventing them from doing so is a mercy.
Now, God knows I understand why the parents don’t bite the bullet, but it’s basically the case.
And people of her grandmother's generation accepted that women would have to toil endlessly hand-washing clothes.
Her grandmother's generation accepted that childbirth would be a pit of suffering.
Just because our ancestors endured something does not mean that we must or should.
They could support more people if the government hadn't underfunded the NHS!
In some cases it is a lot more than 'slightly'. There are reliable treatments for many cancers which would have been considered terminal 40 years ago; however, these can be expensive.
Thus, my question is "There is a medical treatment which, if given to Timmy, means that he is almost certain to live; without it, he is almost certain to die. His parents can not afford to pay for this treatment, and do not have insurance that will cover it. What is the right thing for them to do?".
Let me know how that works out for you.
It will never cease amusing me that in 1945, C.S. Lewis, one of England’s most successful authors, named an organization of scientific depravity “N.I.C.E.,” and then 54 years later, England just goes ahead and creates something of a very similar nature, with the same name and everything.
Who could have realized Torment Nexus jokes were already stale before the turn of the millennium.
British people are already taxed up to their eyeballs, and the NHS is better funded and staffed than ever. In 2018 it already made up 30% of all of England’s services spending, so I’m not sure from where you’re going to get more funding. Despite all that the A&E’s are, morning noon and night, hugely overcrowded every time I’ve been in one, full of very un-British looking people, horribly slow and incapable of triage. There’s only so much blood left in the British stone and it can’t fix those problems.
The actual alternative for Brits is to kick out their unproductive, non-British population, tighten their belts, and spend a decade or two training up new doctors and nurses from the natives. That would drive down costs and reduce wait times in the long run, but no one in a democracy is ever willing to suffer short term unpleasantness, so the NHS will just keep being a money pit until Britain cracks up. It might also help to cut the bureaucracy that infests all Western service providers. I am willing to give credit where even minimal credit is due and it looks like Starmer is willing to do that so maybe there will be some gains from that which stave off disaster for a while.
Alternatively, they could privatize it, which would at least let the companies involved ration care more sensibly.
Hard-heartedness works out surprisingly well for God’s people, sometimes, as it turns out.
To be fair, it’s generally acknowledged that NICE is the part of the system that actually works, and it genuinely does a pretty good job of deciding what forms of treatment are sane and worth the money and what forms are just utility monsters.
More options
Context Copy link
What is the mechanism by which replacing foreign-trained doctors with native British doctors is supposed to make healthcare more affordable for patients?
My naïve assumption is that doctors from, say, the Indian subcontinent are willing to accept lower pay and less favorable conditions than comparable Brits, simply because the opportunity to live and work in Britain is worth so much more to them than it is to a native Brit who takes that opportunity for granted. This is, as far as I can tell, pretty uniformly the story of nearly all immigrant labor, skilled or unskilled, throughout the developed world. And presumably the ability to furnish such doctors lower wages and less benefits would in turn redound to the patient in terms of lower costs.
I’m extremely sympathetic to many of the arguments for deporting foreign laborers — even doctors — and thereby clearing the field for natives to move into their remunerative positions; however, the argument that it will make things cheaper for the end users of those services seems to be quite dubious. Perhaps I’m missing something. Am I wrong that Indian doctors accept lower pay and that this causes healthcare costs, ceteris paribus, to decrease relative to the counterfactual in which all doctors are white Brits?
I think there’s a lot of friction that arises from doctors of all nations attempting to minister to patients of all nations.
Supposedly there are stringent language tests and of course we have examples on this board that show some foreign doctors pass these tests with flying colours, but I’ve also heard lots of stories from close family of doctors just being completely unable to speak or comprehend basic English. And of course now half the patients don’t speak English, so all paper has to be massively duplicated in every language and then presumably translated for the docs. Likewise stories of doctors just repeatedly not turning up for appointments that they themselves booked with the patient.
Would an all English population of doctors be better? I don’t know but I’m pretty sure that replacing say the bottom 50% would help.
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