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 -
This is right in line with standard government policy on all products:
Restrict supply and subsidize demand.
The end result is skyrocketing prices.
The opposite would look like:
only families with kids under 18 get to buy single family homes. - restricting demand
Housing construction companies get massive tax write-offs for each house they construct. - subsidizing supply
I guess that's closer to China policy.
But the end goal isn't lower-priced houses, it's more children. If the only way to afford a single family home became to have 3+ children, more people would have them? Also, I don't think you're taking into account that people would still need to qualify for the mortgage, meaning the total house value can't be so high that the two parents can't afford it. This policy just takes out saving up for it which is onerous given that the mid 20s is the best biological time for babies.
Though my policy combined with something like:
Would help move the current housing stock around and help to some extent.
The issue is that the more you push policies that are "fuck you for not having a girlfriend" at young men, the more likely you are to get young men who choose violence. If a man can't afford housing, so can't actually end up in a stable enough situation to attract a partner and have kids, then there isn't a good reason to not just rebel against the entire system.
If we're going to punish men who don't have a partner more than not having a partner is a penalty in and of itself, we're going to disproportionately be punishing men who are more educated (quick googling shows that men who have higher education levels are more likely to be both unmarried and virgins).
Except women are also punished for not marrying in this scenario. Which would help a bit with pair bonding early on.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Demand is mostly consumers, supply is mostly corporations.
People (consumers) really don't like the government telling them they can't do stuff. Corporations are much more used to it, and it's professional so their employees don't care so much.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link