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 -
So you'd be cool with your mom taking a cut of your paycheck? Interesting plan. Unfortunately, I'm not sure who would be the constituency, given that professedly people want above-replacement fertility because of the need to prop up Social Security and Medicare.** What would be the point of draconian policy if the community weren't planning to socialize the benefits?
**Although the back-to-the-kitchen arm of the discourse never seems to consider that you start by deliberately deactivating a large chunk of your current taxpaying workers, in exchange for a nebulous promise of additional workers two decades down the road. Unless the stay-at-home mom happens to have daughters, in which case her sacrifice is in vain for forty years until one of them pumps out a son.
I would be much happier if the money I paid into social security/medicare just went directly to my parents instead, yes. And even without the coercion of the state, it's not like children sending money to their parents is anything new. My mom has sent remittances to her mother in brazil for decades. That's effectively the same thing. If she hadn't been unfairly taxed to pay for feckless american non-parents she could have sent even more money back, and had more money to save for herself.
So you admit that taxing the youth to pay for medicare and SS are draconian, and yet you think somehow socializing the benefits makes them any better?
Remove the taxes. Remove the social programs. If parents are good parents, their children will be happy to help them. If parents are bad parents, then they deserve what they'll get. If non-parents don't plan for the future, they don't deserve society's help. If non-parents try and invest responsibly for the future, they shouldn't be stymied by the fact that they have to also pay for the upkeep of bad parents and lazy non-parents.
What's "nebulous" is Medicare and Medicaid. Thanks to the demographic crisis, I have zero expectation of getting any substantial old-age benefits. So why should I have to pay for the lazy old people that hollowed out the base of the demographic pyramid in the first place?
And since I'm getting this vibe that you're blue-tribe, and suspect you're just not interested in arguments about personal responsibility, let me try also appealing to a value I suspect we share:
The fact that dumb old people don't need to keep younger generations happy to receive benefits is why we have trump, climate change, and the housing crisis. Gerontocracy thrives off the back of old-age welfare.
More options
Context Copy link
Fertile society and public-welfare-society are incompatible paths of societal development. I don't know about the other fertility-yes and public-welfare-no people, but as far as I'm concerned it's a question of switching tracks entirely rather than to make minimal adjustments in order to prop up existing institutions. Of course it won't happen - modernity is married to the self-destructive path. But half-measures and knob-fiddling won't cut it. Attempting to raise fertility to prop up public welfare is like trying to throw wood into a burning building because the old beams have already been consumed.
But as much as I detest public welfare, it's not the sole source of this evil. Modernity isn't sick in only one way. Low fertility is also due to urbanization, atomization, and yes, of course, emancipation and the prevalent girlboss et al. narratives. Our resident women and emancipation advocates may disagree, and I understand that this isn't a bullet that can be bitten with any semblance of social grace, but ultimately women must breed. Easy to say for a man, I know. But them's the breaks. Outsourcing fertility to the third world is a retarded idea born from the utterly idealistic view that we can just convert arbitrary types and numbers of immigrants into natives with minimal friction - which isn't working as is. If you want first-world societies to persist as such, you either need first-world women to give birth to and raise their own children, or you need a radically new kind of society that can take in any kind of human capital and convert it into whatever is required without the currently observable failure modes. Which doesn't exist so far, and the fewered imaginings of current-day utopian progressives
And so we come to what seems like an even more ridiculous bullet to bite. Parents should own their children. Sounds atrocious to most people nowadays, and is certainly not without its many pitfalls, but I see no way around it. That's how it was in most premodern societies, and for good reason. It's practical. It's prosocial. The incentives align. It's philosophically consistent, not that anyone cares. The kids age out of it sooner or later, and I'm sure there are many ways for laws and regulations that can screw up the relationships between elderly parents and their adult children, but giving parents all the responsibility and none of the authority (to exaggerate somewhat) has always been a non-starter. Mandatory public schooling, ubiquitous public welfare, and the complete legal independence of children from their parents, what do you even need parents for? Wiping asses? More pressingly, what do you need children for? To punish yourself with little brats who get raised by others and can disregard you at will? Parental love is the only motivator left, and that's in pretty bad shape in a society that lives on synthetic superstimuli and instant gratification. Certainly there are high-functioning parents who raise their children right, have strong bonds with them and are even supported by them in their old age. But there are increasingly more who check out, do the bare minimum, park the kids in front of a screen and call it a day because why bother the little wireheads will never appreciate them anyways.
I wanted to write more, but I need to go.
We're past the society where parents owning their children translated to direct economic benefits, though, such as help on the farm or apprenticing in your profession. How exactly do you propose the parents should extract the value from their children? Lifelong alimony?
The easiest way to extract value from your children is to raise them in such a way that they'll want to help support you later in life. For example, spending time with them when they're young, helping them out both financially and socially when they're starting out on their own, and in general treating them well means that they'll be more willing to support you when you need it. If they don't want to support their children? Well, that's fine, but then they should be forced to plan for their own retirement instead of taking it from those they couldn't convince to help them.
I know of people who love and care for their parents - having their mother live with them and help take care of their children would not be a burden for those people.
I'll bite the bullet and say that if people (like my parents) do not produce kids who can/want to support them, and don't plan for their own future, then they should suffer for it; if I stop working I'll be homeless within a year, they can deal with the same.
More options
Context Copy link
Getting to decide when and who they marry, for one, in order to steer them towards the formation of productive and prosocial families that remain within reach and can thus support each other and the parents, rather than to have them move off each to a different end of the world never to be heard from again.
High-functioning parents won't need the law for their children to take their opinions into account. For others, it looks like the perfect way to go from filial disinterest to open revolt and spite.
More options
Context Copy link
How are you going to enforce this? What are you going to do when your kids want to marry someone you don't approve of? Disown them? Shoot them?
Arranged marriage with veto power backed by disownment is an entirely different thing from killing your child because they won't marry who you want them to...
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