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 respective wages indicate that the market disagrees with you, there. As markets are how Western societies assigns scarce goods (such as labor), and generally are thought to do a non-terrible job of it, this requires further explanation.
I mean, there were certainly lucrative occupations in the past which did not correspond to fulfilling a need for society. An uncontroversial example might be a bank robber. Even the craziest economist will not look at the average income of bank robbers and conclude that given their effective hourly rate, there is a great demand for bank robbers in society.
People with different politics will widely disagree on which professions are in the same parasitic class as the bank robber. An argument could be made for meth cooks, developers of free-to-play Skinner box mobile games, people who make advertisements for tobacco products, ransomware gangs.
Another model would liken your ivy league lawyers and McKinsey consultants to the feather train of a peacock: a weird attractor state where the underlying forces (of evolution or the market) end up spending a lot of surplus resources just for signaling that they had surplus resources to spend. More uncontroversially, this is true for luxury brands like Porsche or Rolex: nobody buys a Rolex because they want to know what time it is.
A related concept is what Yudkowsky calls Inadequate Equilibria. Games (in the game theory sense) can be set up so that the stable outcome will be far away from the Pareto frontier, so that if participants could only coordinate better, everyone could get higher utility. As an example, consider the security dilemma: The states of the world spend trillions on their military-industrial complexes to prevent being invaded and better invade others, but as that is a zero-sum game, they will on average not get anything for that. In theory, the members of the United Nations might coordinate to forgo developing and building new weapon systems and spend the resources on endeavors which are not zero sum, like education (to the degree that it enables people to do more things instead of just competing for finite jobs), human necessities, entertainment, research or the like.
More options
Context Copy link