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 -
No, it's just sellers being sellers (and yes, every seller does this- talk to some salespeople sometime, they'll have plenty of examples). Buyers can deal with that in constructive or destructive ways. I'm more interested in the dynamics between the two.
Sellers have a vested interest in frustrating price discovery.
Sociobiologically/evolutionarily speaking, you are the seller (and were not only quick to claim yourself as such, but you also mocked/confuse me for being one of those damn low-ballers) so naturally, you'll tell me that price discovery is dangerous- you're simply following your incentives to do that.
I assert that treating your [hypothetical] sons the same way, and telling them that lie rather than the truth, is net-negative; both because "yeah, actually, prospective sellers really do work like that", and because by not doing so you choose to make your [child] sacrifice to the social religion of "seller good buyer bad" (or "capital good labor bad", or "woman good man bad") rather than the actual truth. Same thing with fathers and daughters, though the incidentals are slightly different.
And it's not like it's bad to follow those incentives, but my entire point is to use simple market conditions as the framing, not whether or not it be morally better to be a buyer or seller (or the moral questions of buying or selling); this is the point of disclaiming "but buying/selling sex is just prostitution" as morally neutral even though that is completely 100% descriptive of what happens.
Yes, it is; the problem with the label is that it once used to describe a real thing (and by the few people who actually speak both honestly and more self-awarely about it than others), but it has been appropriated by marketing/sellers to achieve a better negotiating position.
Like what? The "battered housewife" is explained spectacularly; a seller who has priced themselves too low or has an overactive instinct to sell in this area. This is also why, as the price of women increased due to their economic situation improving through technology, wife-beating and spousal abuse has declined: husbands simply cannot afford women that will permit them to do that (and that's ignoring minimum-wage and employee protection laws, which age of consent and anti-marital rape/no-fault divorce/abortion laws serve as, respectively).
Oh yeah, and trophy wives are Veblen goods.
More options
Context Copy link