site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31254 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 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.

14
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Okay - why do you think that there is some amount of supply that will satisfy the demand? Before we turn London into kwaloon walled city?

What about turning London (density 14k/sq mi) into Brooklyn (38k/sq mi), which would allow the population to double?

Why do NIMBYs constantly apply an excluded middle fallacy, thinking that the only possibilities are San Jose (population density 1.5k/sq mi) or Kowloon?

Why do NIMBYs constantly apply an excluded middle fallacy, thinking that the only possibilities are San Jose (population density 1.5k/sq mi) or Kowloon?

Because there are no limiting principles, no Schelling fences. Once you've turned San Jose into San Francisco, there's no reason not to go on to make it London, Brooklyn, Manhattan, or Kowloon.

There certainly is a limiting principle - it's when the marginal value of additional housing ~= marginal cost of providing it.

It's the exact same limiting principle that causes my local supermarked to be a pleasant place to shop instead of a warehouse sized ball pit full of rotting apples that customers don't want. Apple producers only make as many apples as they think customers want to buy at a price that makes them a reasonable profit.

And for any housing purchasers who don't want to live in such a place, they won't have to. If we turn Silicon Valley into a 266M person megalopolis by increasing density to Brooklyn levels, that leaves 67M people spread throughout the rest of a depopulated US. Plenty of space if you want to live there.

There certainly is a limiting principle - it's when the marginal value of additional housing ~= marginal cost of providing it.

So, Kowloon it is.

If we turn Silicon Valley into a 266M person megalopolis by increasing density to Brooklyn levels, that leaves 67M people spread throughout the rest of a depopulated US.

Which means the people already IN Silicon Valley either have to move or to put up with living in Brooklyn West, and they'd rather not. Which is why NIMBY. And quite possibly moving might not be an option, because of other things the same people who support YIMBY support -- "open space" preservation, anti-sprawl legislation, urban growth boundaries, and the like.

Houston and Tokyo (notable places that allow building houses) are not even close to Kowloon. So clearly the market equilibrium is not where you think.

You should actually pay attention to the numbers. The Brooklyn West phenomenon that you fear involves literally 2/3 of all Americans moving to Silicon Valley.

I am not aware of any YIMBY who has proposed moving 100% of America into NYC or Mega SV and banning houses anywhere else. You seem to have confused them with NIMBYs - the latter group is the folks who oppose building a Brooklyn density San Jose in the vacant land adjacent to San Jose.

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