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 mean, you could just stop subsidizing it, rather than actively punishing the elderly who do not have children.
In Canada, we have programs that are explicitly a transfer from the working aged to the elderly (OAS); these programs have insane cutoffs (OAS is only fully cut off at an income of $180k/year, and doesn't check existing assets; it's very possible for someone elderly to own a $3m+ house, and still receive the full amount of the OAS). Cutting that off would increase the amount of money in the pockets of the young, improve housing availability (as it forces the elderly to sell their oversized homes to have funds), and not punish those who didn't have children; but instead just punish those who chose not to plan for their retirement.
Seriously, I'd be homeless and living on the streets if I were jobless - why are we saying that the least productive members of society get immunity, and to keep their assets, while the most productive (by which I don't mean me, but the young in general) have no safety nets at all?
In the US the OAS-equivalent (Social Security old-age benefits) is notionally (though not actually) funded by a tax paid during your working years. This (by design) makes it hard to make the case you're making here about transfers -- it's hard to make the case that people who paid 6.2% (and whose employers paid the same) on their earnings all their life specifically for this purpose deserve nothing when they actually do reach old age.
The fun part is that Canada's is also notionally (though not actually) paid by a tax paid during your working years; the issue is that like any government, ours spent all the money that was supposed to be used for it on other things.
Perhaps a valuable lesson can be learned here about voting for people who spend more than the country makes, and have to take the money they promised you to fund it is in order here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link