site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31762 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So just don't fund them through tax dollars.

A child is an expense little different from a dog. Its 20-100 lbs of mammal. Everything else is social signalling.

If a mother actually can't earn enough to afford to feed it in her studio apartment... she should give it up for adoption as anyone that incapable is clearly also going to be incapable at everything else to do with child rearing.

We have millions of competent well adjusted infertile couples who wish they could adopt... why the hell do we subsidize incompetent mothers one penny?

why the hell do we subsidize incompetent mothers one penny

Subsidize is doing a bit of work, here; as far as child support goes, it's a choice of how we split what's currently the man's contribution. Regardless of anyone's level of sympathy for irresponsible mothers, there's no reason that they should get less sympathy than irresponsible fathers. And even if we did want to subsidize irresponsible fathers compared to the status quo, allowing financial abortions would unleash a dynamic that results in substantially greater financial subsidization of children by taxpayers.

And hypothetically, at least, all this money is going to the upkeep of the child. If the money not actually ending up benefitting the child is the concern, you'd get a lot more buy in (from me, at least) with ideas on how to make sure a greater proportion of child support goes to benefit the intended beneficiary.

Regardless of anyone's level of sympathy for irresponsible mothers, there's no reason that they should get less sympathy than irresponsible fathers.

We generally grant less sympathy to those with more power over the situation. We've decided to grant women more power than men over the decision to become parents (via abortion), so it stands to reason they should get less sympathy than men if they are irresponsible.

Oh, so now you’re assuming away the disaster that is our foster care and adoption system. Just have the free market do it, I guess.

How many “competent well adjusted infertile” couples are there, really? Are they still champing at the bit if you slash all government involvement? If you flood the adoption pool by removing all consequences for lovin’ and leavin’?

There is actually a huge shortage of children for adoption at the moment, not just babies but also older kids without mental issues. Children moved into this system would very quickly find a new home.

infertile couples, as well as single people who can't have kids the old fashioned way outnumber the available adoptable children by a massive percentage.

The reason there are foster homes at all is government bureaucracy, and problem children who realistically can't be raised by anyone.

If the standards of adoption were lowered to what they were in the 1890s damn near every child under 5 would get adopted.

If the standards of adoption were lowered to what they were in the 1890s damn near every child under 5 would get adopted.

Only possible if you also have the populace of the 1890s who won't put pressure on politicians the first time a child is adopted then killed/mistreated by the adoptive parents. No point wishing for the laws and norms of the 1890s today. Those are downstream from your population.

How many “competent well adjusted infertile” couples are there, really?

Iirc there’s a ratio of about 20 families per child waiting for adoption

I’m seeing ~2 million families in the adoption process and 113,000 eligible children in 2021. So...yeah, that’s about right. Is this just CPS bureaucracy? I’d think the state would want to hand kids off ASAP.

53,500 were adopted. Contrast the >17 million children living with single mothers. Assuming an even distribution, that’s still almost a million per year. What fraction of those would be dumped into the adoption system if child support were demolished?

To start with, only about 30% of single mothers receive child support to begin with, and surely some(if not most) of those would choose not to give up their children if it gets cut off.

Lowball well over 50% of those wouldn't surrender, and if they're recieving child support then there's a father who hasn't disappeared who would presumably be willing to assume custody in again over 50% of cases...

Considering any woman getting child support is middle-class enough to have gone through the legal system and won a court case... the final number who might surrender is probably under 5% of women receiving child support.

I doubt that any woman receiving child support is necessarily out of poverty, but agree with the broader point that for most, the alternative to child support is being poorer, not surrendering their children.

Bureaucracy is part of it, but part of it is also a very uneven demand for children. Contra the claims of adoption advocates infertile couples do not regard any child as better than no child. There is very high demand for young (infant) healthy children. There is very low demand for kids who are older, or have behavioral problems, or disabilities.

Who would've thought.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats