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 disagree with this idea that it's "much better not to be on welfare" in the most strident of terms. What are you even talking about? You go on about how it's "insecure" for these people, without even mentioning the fact that they are far MORE likely to have security than someone actually working, paying for their benefits, who has to worry about losing a job or getting priced out of their area, etc.
This is just a completely nuts take imo. Not even mentioning the fact that these people DON'T HAVE TO WORK!!!
The point we disagree upon, I believe, is this: whether security can be guaranteed on anything beyond one’s own self (and, of course, the divine providence we are all obliged to depend on).
Let’s separate these two cases. The second is a simple one of self-imposed debt slavery. The man is working. The first is one where they have worked, but a great amount of their security is explicitly dependent on government largesse.
If Trump 2 has demonstrated nothing else, it’s that government largesse is far from guaranteed. It can be removed as political winds change, and possession being nine tenths of the law, is much harder to keep your hands on over personal holdings. One’s ownership, one’s capacity to work, one’s personal relationships are far more secure than anything coming from the government. The people on the dole are like that lady from Streetcar, always depending on the kindness of strangers. To dispel any subtlety to this point, she didn’t have to work, but she sure as hell got raped.
Another small point. The husband of the first couple is a civil engineer. He alone should have been capable of pulling approximately six figures yearly across his career, probably a little less because it’s Idaho. If he went into private industry instead of civil engineering he probably could have gotten a reasonable amount more. Add on the wife’s salary, adjust for stock market growth, and they could have been dramatically richer if they’d bought index funds starting in the 90s, when they were 30. Why is that hypothetical other couple not up for our ire? Their money has to be coming from somewhere, right? And they sure aren’t working for it. Why is it morally wrong to defer spending on your income in hopes of a future relaxed payday if and only if you’re investing that particular future into the government?
I can agree with the point that, in an ultimate sense, your own skills are more reliable than being on the dole. However, the dole has been pretty good for the last ~60 years or so, and requires far less effort along almost every metric. I'm not saying that people on the dole have it equal to someone on a career, but that the relative security and comfort for effort is INSANELY disproportionate.
In terms of the second couple - they worked for their money and made smart decisions. They deserve to reap the rewards. Earning money via investing is again, a world of difference away from forcibly redistributing other's wealth to yourself via taxation.
More options
Context Copy link
Because no one made a political ad for them, and they're not crying over not getting Obamacare subsidies. I'm in more or less your theoretical private couple's position, and have been putting off my own retirement precisely because of the ridiculously high cost of health insurance.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link