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 don't at all mind arguments about virtue, but I don't see how virtue pertains here. We don't pay old people entitlements because it's moral or just; I gather we paid them originally to ensure continued consumption and get them out of the labor market, and now we probably also pay them so the bureaucratic class can skim their cut off the top. Why should you have to pay? Because you live in a big society, and state capacity costs money.
Your argument doesn't follow from your premise. Yes, I agree that we should pay the taxes required to mantain state capacity. Cutting old-age security from the budget, and reducing taxes proportionately, wouldn't affect that. "You need to pay taxes because we need roads" is a good argument. But adding, "So then you can't complain about giving money to a vampiric class of elders," is just building a bailey around your motte.
At this point you're just arguing against yourself. If there's no morality or justice in paying old people, why in the world would I want more of my consumption re-allocated toward old people? Why would I want services to become more expensive because there's fewer workers? You might be able to convince me that it would be worth getting everyone else to pay for old people specifically in my industry to retire, but why would I care if I get a promotion and a raise if the extra money was just going to go to old people anyway? I'd prefer to keep working at my current responsibilities and pay. I don't think I even need to address the "skim off the top" bit.
You would legitimately have a better argument if you appealed directly to my morality. I'm taking a bit of a hardline stance, but I could imagine wanting to maintain some level of old-age security out of pure altruism. It wouldn't be structured the way it is now, and it would definitely be less generous than social security + medicare, but I'd support a unified program designed to supply enough food, water, housing, and dollars-per-QALY efficient medical interventions to keep the elderly, destitute, and disabled alive. Such a program would, by design, offer very few luxuries-- but I would also allow local communities and charity groups to supplement those luxuries, and also create a simplified program to enable whatever marginal employment the participants are capable of performing to afford small luxuries. Babysitting children, cooking meals, performing chores, etcetera-- untaxed, and with maximally flexible hours. Basically, those "preschool + retirement home" setups should be the model.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link