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 -
I don’t know, im personally of the opinion that there are good and bad ways to achieve any goal and that there are always trade-offs that come with any of it. And for my own personal ideal state, im in favor of tge Scandinavian model where sure you aren’t going to be the biggest baddest economy or a global hegemony, but by and large the bulk of people can get along just fine. I’m not opposed to universal health care of some sort, but I understand it rations care by wait times where the American system rations by money.
I’m generally with at least tge idea that whatever the form a government takes, the most important thing is customer service— getting things done that create a healthy, thriving country full of thriving people. I’m not convinced that the money-maximizing system we’ve built in the USA delivers on that. That doesn’t mean socialism or communism or nationalism or theocracy would do better. I just want a country where the bulk of people can live a reasonable lifestyle, and where a setback isn’t fatal.
Define "reasonable." Because what you define as reasonable may be reprehensible to me.
A lot of the tradeoffs we're implicitly talking about have to do with security over possibility. If the shot at a successful and independent life means that I could also, with equal or even higher probability, end up destitute, i'll take the deal so long as I am in control of myself. Sacrificing autonomy and independence so that the government can spoon feed me a "comfortable" (but dependent) life? No thank you.
For a lot of bedrock constitutional reasons, the American government can never be good at what you term "customer service." The only way is to let the customers help themselves - i.e. less government.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3xjgM7hcNznACRzBi/the-jackpot-age
A fun thought experiment article, but it has some flaws.
This line especially sent me to WTF-istan:
That's a category error (social vs economic system) wrapped in a demonstrably false statement about capitalism. It's assertions like these that make me "smh" about crypto bros' economic literacy.
I also think there's a misunderstand of macro level data in the article. Many things can be true at once:
But but but "wealth inequality" one might counter. The US has this horrible Gini coefficient. Well, let's look at the Top 10 most equitable income countries on earth based on the Gini:
Are we really going to pretend that any of those countries - The Netherlands included! - have social, economic, and political conditions that represent a better life or life possibilities than the United States?
Because I am a fan of steelmanning, I'll point out this post - today! - from Marginal Revolution which has a lot to say about status games in wealth societies.
The conclusions are pretty interesting and heterodox. But there's an easy lesson to draw at the meta level; don't play status games. Make money in order to support yourself and your family, save for the future, and then to pursue things you generally enjoy. If you're making money to buy status, you're playing a negative geometric mean game (i.e. from the article linked in the post I am replying to) and you're almost certainly going to "lose" over the long term - or hit the jackpot and be someone rather famous (which is a loss in its own right if you ask me).
The more I think about it, the more I think the "the economy isn't working" arguments that are in vogue on both sides of the political spectrum today are category errors that conflate a lot of modern anti-social habits with a mysterious yet central "flaw" in capitalism. Capitalism is a means of efficiently trading resources to order to generate economic growth. Imperfect as it may be, it's the best thing we've come up with a species. But capitalism will not - and has no role in - making you feel good about yourself in society. That's a far trickier situation that involved politics, community, and personal values systems.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Almost everyone in America who doesn’t ’live a reasonable lifestyle’ has themselves to blame, mostly through drug use. The American working class are wealthier than the Scandinavian middle classes.
When you say "almost everyone", who would you exclude? I agree directionally, but where we probably disagree is on who is included or excluded in "almost everyone".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link