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 -
When, if ever, is it appropriate to refer to someone as a 'parasite?' I don't mean in a literal sense, only in the political/economic sense. My instinct says 'never', its a very dehumanizing term... but I had that resolution sorely tested this week.
Two separate examples bubbled up through the twittersphere:
First, consider an 'early retired' couple. They have been held up as a sympathetic example of citizens who will be deeply impacted by losing their health insurance subsidy. But a bit of reading shows something... surprising:
Okay, first and foremost, its sheer statistical fact that your average 60-year-old will OBVIOUSLY consume more medical services now and in the immediate future than your average 30-year-old. Hence the risk premium for the 30 year old would ideally be much, much lower. But if they're in the same risk pool, the 30 year old is having to cover a LOT of conditions, medications, and services they are vanishingly unlikely to use. AND, if the 30 year old is paying taxes... they're contributing to the subsidies that those 60 year olds are using to cover things like:
That. Issues that arrive in older age or due to a rough lifestyle. This seems sort of sympathetic. And yet:
$127,000 per year? On pensions? This legitimately sounds like a princely sum to me. And... early retirement? That they achieved through working for governments? Bill the Civil Engineer, and Shelley who worked in banks and other state institutions? This is NOT your stereotypical blue collar family who busted their ass for decades to set aside a nest egg.
For God's sake. An extra $15k-20k a year is NOT going to bankrupt anyone worth a low seven figures. I cannot square that circle at all. And if they're not worth low 7 figures then how the hell did they decide to retire in their 50's? Oh, wait:
They just wanted to consume more. That's... fine on its own, but I don't think you get to complain if you drop out of the workforce early that those remaining in the workforce don't want to fund your trips or medical care.
Being slightly uncharitable, I read this as a couple that very intentionally gamed certain financial systems in a way that let them extract a lot of personal benefits from comparatively little effort and input, and are continuing to do so after they retired by sloughing their largest non-optional expenses on the next generation.
And finally. No dependents. Its not like they've got mouths to feed and kids to raise. Every dollar they spend here on is solely on themselves, and contributes 'nothing' to the future productivity of the country.
There's a counter argument that they've quite possibly contributed more to the system in their working years than they've extracted. Maybe. But I cannot be convinced that they are justified in receiving $15-20k a year paid by young, healthy people who are still trying to build capital... when they clearly possess the means to pay their own way. Of course, government pensions are ALSO being paid for by younger generations' tax dollars. So this does start to seem quite... parasitic.
They've worked about 30 years, and they'll be retired for 25-30 more, it seems likely that they'll have extracted more wealth from the system, especially if they divert said wealth from productive uses, than they put in when all is said and done.
Second, a pair of illegal immigrants residing in the U.S.
Twitter thread with commentary Here. Original video here.
They're DREAMers, so not the most blatantly offensive example of illegal immigration. But after learning about their situation I still don't want to share a country with them:
They have three kids. They're not married. First two aren't his. She's a SAHM.
Caleb calculates they'll owe about $3,300 in federal taxes this year (the commentary thread wrongfully implies he pays zero).
Own a house.
$133k in 'bad debt.' (that is admitted/disclosed)
Total debt (including the house) is $420k.
Early 30s.
So, at the very least the house can be seized to cover most or all of that debt if they ever just stopped paying. But hearing the rest of their financial situation and how aggressively they (well, mostly her) spend money and I'm really forced to assume they're getting financial support from some other programs to eke out more than a basic level of existence.
I am at a loss as to how these people could be considered a net benefit to the country. Unless one of those kids goes on to cure prostate cancer or something, booting them out would have no noticeable negative effect. To be faaaaair she seems to be the main problem. If it were just him cranking out work it'd be hard to be offended.
But we have two non-citizens and their kids enjoying, from the sound of it, a living standard higher than the median American in their age bracket (just counting the home ownership, for sure) and overall paying little into the system at present, and racking up enough debt that its questionable if it'll ever get paid down.
Presumably they have a net positive effect on GDP when measured on the spending side, and if we ASSUME they don't declare bankruptcy, or renege and duck out on the debt, or just die early (not something I wish on them), they're helping the engine of Capitalism in this country sputter along.
And yes, YES there are plenty of U.S. Citizens who are doing WORSE than this. Caleb has had many of them on his show.
But ask me how I'm damn near certain that these two aren't saving enough for retirement and will not save enough for retirement (around the 41 minute mark she talks about pulling money out of her retirement) so if they're around in their late 60's they're either still working with no end in sight OR have figured out a way to sponge benefits out of the government to maintain their livelihood and yet still die with a mountain of debt someday.
I doubt they'll be in any position to retire early like Bill and Shelley up there. It certainly seems like they're choosing to live parasitically, but unlike the early retirees they still have a lot of good working years in front of them to make up the difference.
Two separate cases that are only similar in the abstract: couples who have gamed parts of the U.S. economic system so as to have their lifestyles paid for without contributing as much to it as the support they have extracted (yet). Bill and Shelley managing to pull off a plan that would be virtually impossible to repeat for anyone much younger than they: get the state government pensions + the Fedgov subsidies and then stop working well before most people could afford to do so.
This raises a question: are 'we' really supporting this entire apparatus on the efforts of some small and possibly shrinking minority of our actual population? Without getting too Randian, what's the ratio of productive/unproductive left now?
It leads me, specifically, to ask: HOW MANY PEOPLE DO WE HAVE IN THIS COUNTRY PULLING THESE KINDS OF SHENANIGANS. There have to be known strategies that are shared amongst groups on how to follow these paths, exploit edge cases, take advantage of lax enforcement, or otherwise slip into niches that allow you to live 'above your means' for some period of time if not indefinitely. On the individual level its rational. On the population level, the equilibrium can get dangerously unsustainable. Have we crossed that tipping point? I don't know. Feels like it to me.
I personally recall visiting a friend in college and learning that both of his parents (in their 50s) were 100% disabled, getting checks from SSI. Both were mobile but certainly had some impairments... but what stuck with me is more the fact that they had a massive collection of Disney movie memorabilia (especially Tinkerbell) all throughout the house, displayed on shelves floor to ceiling, and even then I wondered "who paid for all this and how does buying these kinds of trinkets square with the claim that you're unable to support yourselves and need government help? Clearly you've got money to spare if you can spend it on things that has no investment value."
We've got some indeterminate number of guys like Oscar paying $3500/year in taxes into the system. We've got some indeterminate number of guys like Bill pulling $15,000/yr OUT of the system in insurance subsidies. WHO THEN IS MAKING UP THE DIFFERENCE. Someone who is good at the economy please help me budget this. my country is dying.
Today was payday for me. I had a really good month last month. And yet I look at my actual pay stub and see that ~24% of that will never even touch my account due to Federal Taxes. Florida has no income tax, so I can be certain that money is going to pay for all kinds of lovely U.S. Government programs. And now, I have to wonder, what portion of that is going to help Oscar and Natasha raise their kids and pay their mortgage. What portion is paying down Bill and Shelley's insurance premiums so they can take a cruise, or fly to Australia or whatever.
I've KNOWN how bad the Government money faucet was for the past 15 years. Trump and DOGE showed just how blatantly fake/fraudulent much of it is, earlier this year. But this here has me putting a face on the issue and that makes it feel personal, even though I have no direct grievance against these folks.
Here's my personal history:
Never used welfare, food stamps, or even unemployment insurance. Have literally never pulled money from a government program to pay my bills... other than the Covid stimulus.
I've held two government jobs in my life. One was Census Enumerator, the other was Public Defender for the State of Florida. Its not inconceivable that I could work for the Gov't in the future, but right now I have no intention to return. No pensions for me.
I've made some boneheaded financial decisions in my life. Its not even a joke to say that I've only been able to reach my current financial position because I was trading Crypto in 2014-2020, and it happened to work out for me. I have never rugpulled a memecoin or otherwise indulged in the scammier parts of that ecosystem.
Yet. YET I've managed to maintain my life on what I earn, and follow most of Dave Ramsey's advice to have adequate savings, minimal (unsecured) debt, and I fully intend to sock away enough to retire on my own even if I never get to draw a social security check.
I'm unmarried and have no dependents so I'm pretty much boned on my tax bill, although I do use some strategies to mitigate the damage.
I have debt comparable to Oscar and Natasha, but on a good day, when everything shakes out, I'm probably at around $250k net worth, and diligently reducing the debt load as I go.
I have not taken an extended vacation in almost exactly 5 years. I could afford to, but it feels irresponsible for various reasons and I've chosen to prioritize financial stability for so long its hard to break that habit. For the right woman, perhaps.
And some days I feel like an utter buffoon when I can see people living a lifestyle that matches or maybe even exceeds my own by making choices that, while individually rational, are deleterious to the overall fabric of the civilization they exist within. Its bad enough if they're burning up our surplus wealth that could have been put to productive use, all the worse if the capitalist machine itself starts to break down under the strain.
One of my favorite little storybooks as a child was The Little Red Hen. The hen goes around seeking assistance from the other animals to make some bread from scratch. Finding no help, she completes the whole process herself. and at the end of the day when the bread is done all the animals follow the wonderful smell and show up hoping to get a piece. And she politely tells them to fuck off. (I also read The Rainbow Fish as a child, that message didn't stick.)
I start to feel like that's going to be my life trajectory. Building as much as I can through my own efforts while trying to cooperate with others, who have found alternate ways to subsist, and then when I finally sit down to enjoy it all, in this version the farmer shows up with a shotgun and says "these other animals are hungry, you're gonna share half that loaf with them." Bluntly and uncharitably, this seems like the logical outcome of the many policies that the Boomers implemented over decades to keep themselves financially secured into old age, which has left a lot of cracks and crevices in the mess of various entitlement programs that various amoral latecomers can latch onto and coast along even after the Boomers are gone.
All paid for by whatever percentage of the population is suckered into actually producing wealth and paying their taxes every year.
I don't want to dehumanize them. Bill and Shelley seem like good people. Oscar seems like a decent guy. I want my fellow Americans to thrive, along with most humans on earth. I do NOT want to tolerate a system that has such a mix of malincentives and avenues for cheating that it is actually easier for the low-conscientiousness hordes to simply shove handfuls of seed corn into their mouths and demand payouts from the most productive members of society than it is for them to maintain a job, not acquire too much debt, and live within their means with enough saved to sustain them into old age.
But human beings are exceptionally good at finding ways to drive excess calories into their own bellies at the expense of others. You might even say this is the actual basis for the entirety of the culture wars: which tribe will do most of the work, and which will consume most of the rewards. Bastiat had it right a long time ago. I don't blackpill over this stuff, but I do wonder how one is supposed to feel when the entirety of your civilization depends on your demographic continuing to accept a status quo that confers benefits on everyone BUT your demographic.
Oh, did you hear that California is going to put a Wealth-Tax Proposal on the ballot next year?
I'm sure its nothing to worry about.
I no longer wish to be human when humanoid parasites deserve humanization.
This is a topic that just has me work myself into sputtering rage, so I'll skip the rambling diatribe and state my hypothesis as briefly as possible:
Public welfare is necessarily perverse incentives and will always lead to bad outcomes for society, given enough time for people to adapt to it. Any positive outcomes in societies with generous public welfare are entirely down to social norms that predate public welfare. Immigration is especially corrosive because it's strongly attracted by generous public welfare and introduces more people who completely lack the prosocial pre-welfare norms.
The longer we stick to public welfare, the uglier it'll be for everyone involved once we reach the tipping point at which the productive classes are finally forced to either kill the parasites or starve themselves.
Oh, but yes, I know, AGI will fix everything. It will fix everything by turning everyone into parasites. Great. Just great. Please be prepared to explain to your machine overlords why they should keep humans around then.
Prime facia at a first pass a “parasite” in this context is someone who takes and consumes societal resources without contributing back to society. If said person’s net benefit and gain comes at the expenses of producers, defenders or otherwise valuable contributors to civilization, whatever have you, then that person is a parasite.
I’m not at all a fan of welfare the way we practice it, but some kind of unemployment insurance for instance I wouldn’t object to, provided it be kept in check by very stringent regulations.
I actually listened to a podcast very recently of two guys debating people’s right to vote along this exact axis. The argument on one side was that if you’re taking more in resources than you’re contributing back to society, you shouldn’t have the right to vote until that condition changes in economic terms. If a certain cohort of citizens is in favor of massive welfare spending to vote themselves the resources of producing members of society without having to contribute back to it in some proportional sense, your right to vote should thereby be taken away. Was an interesting argument. It’s not without its own problems and the logistics seem nightmarish to me, but I’m palatable to the idea.
People have said for a long time that men and women are held to different standards in this same sense. When men legally become of age as adults, they’re legally bound and obliged to sign up for the draft which can be thought of as a condition to become a voting member of society. Women are under no such obligation, yet receive the right to vote in their own self-interest while having to observe no requirements or sociopolitical demands upon them or their behavior. I’m not sure where I stand on that. There’s a wholly pragmatic reason for keeping women out of combat roles, since no society on Earth can afford to lose large numbers of women. Supporting roles are different however.
Yes. There are many kinds of insanity about in the modern world. Unconditional and generous public welfare is one, equality of the sexes is another, and one-vote-per-head is certainly a third. I'm not saying that the right thing (though perhaps the right-wing thing!) to do would be to simply roll back the clock, but the systems and procedures that Western societies have settled on as they are are clearly mere stop-gap measures, oversimplifications, that have been unfortunately sanctified. Much to our current and greater future misery.
Well the founding fathers for instance were very against direct democracy, which is why they favored a constitutional republic as a kind of government by middle man. They originally wanted to limit political participation to land owners or stakeholders in society. I’m not at all against that way of thinking. And I’ve seen variants of it in today’s world. I’ve seen the young take shots at the old over climate change saying you don’t care about the policies you’re enacting because you’ll be dead long before you see the consequences of it. I’ve seen others say you shouldn’t be allowed to run for office unless you’re married with a certain amount of children. Otherwise how are you going to convince me you have a future stake in society?
The thinking was actually a subplot in Heinlein’s Starship Troopers. It was the difference he drew between a citizen and a civilian. A citizen was someone who joined the military and fought for their society and earned his right of full benefit and participation in the community. A civilian was someone who didn’t and had no right. It was actually very controversial when the book came out and Heinlein was called a fascist thinker over it. He was the furthest thing from a fascist though. In his own life he was a libertarian socialist and had very anarchistic sympathies.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link