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 -
Turns, stares directly into the camera.
I mean IF THE SHOE FITS.
If we're building our notion of consent from a starting point that assumes/accepts that men and women are generally different, this would probably inform many other ways in which we arrange society.
And the thing about children, at least the law attempts to protect them from exploitation.
Consider, math is the one subject that women haven't caught up with men in despite best efforts over DECADES.
Consider Women hold the majority of student loan debt.
And they pay if off slower than men in general.
If it turns out that a lot of women didn't understand compound interest and the actual implications of accepting loans when they signed up, I would 100% be in favor of releasing them from their loans and making the lenders eat it, b/c there was no true 'meeting of the minds' at the time the loans were incurred.
Under my proposed regime, banks could be forced to write off debts made to any persons who didn't pass the 'maturity test' that showed they actually understand how money and interest actually works, if said person defaults on their loan. No actual consent = no enforceable contract. So banks would prefer to lend to 'mature' individuals.
"But that means women aren't able to attend university as easily!"
Maybe a good thing. But the obvious solution is that they can get someone who does pass the maturity test, maybe their parents... maybe their husband to Co-sign a loan. If they think its a good idea.
Isn't that BETTER than saddling them with a debt they'll quite possibly be stuck with forever? Do we PREFER the world where women unknowingly become debt slaves to the one where they have to either actually learn and understand math OR get someone else's help before they can get loaned money?
For Western and majoritarian values of "we," the answer clearly appears to be yes.
There's a hypercapitalism argument for it, I think.
If we can get them to inject their dollars into the system and saddle them with a requirement that they must stay productive for years and years on end to service their debt, in theory the system captures more of the value they produce than it otherwise might.
And its even BETTER if they eventually get married, and now their husband's productivity can be siphoned off to service her debt too.
That is, people who aren't smart/informed enough to use their debt load wisely are probably never going to make good decisions with money, so maybe it's better than they hand a decent chunk of their salary over to their creditors in perpetuity, since the creditors can at least invest it more wisely.
I despise this argument line, but I can see why some might support it, EVEN aside from egalitarian concerns.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Student loans in the US are generally simple interest, as long as they are paid on time.
Essentially all loans are simple interest if paid on time. Negative amortisation is a notoriously toxic feature, prudent lenders don't allow it, and regulators generally stop imprudent lenders touching it. Negative amortisation was widely available on secured loans (both home mortgages and corporate loans) in the run-up to 2008, and the consequences were as predicted.
More options
Context Copy link
And yet there's a whole genre of social media post where a loanholder bemoans the fact that making minimum/interest only payments results in the debt increasing/never going down. or doesn't even bother to check.
(some of these might be playing dumb, but I think most are honest).
I'm genuinely uncertain which percentage of loanholders are literally too innumerate to get what interest and debt ARE. Its more than 1%. I'd bet more than 10%, honestly.
You could put the actual amortization table in front of them and it might not click.
Look at how many people who end up on Caleb Hammer's show are women. (yes, selection effects are in play).
You cannot convince me that these folks should have been entrusted with the ability to take out 5 figure loans.
See also: This recent tweet.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link