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 am reminded of my neighborhood organization coming out against backyard cottages, partially because it messes with "neighborhood character". For reference, I live in a working-class neighborhood largely built between 1945 and 1970.
When I think of neighborhood character, I don't think of demographics. I think of actions & relationships. If someone rings my doorbell, do I expect someone I've met - or a door-to-door salesman? If someone walks down the sidewalk, do we - at bare minimum - exchange pleasantries?
I have not had many positive reactions with people who are concerned about neighborhood character. Their org had 50 years to build a character worth defending - and they haven't. They knew I was going to have a second child. They never thought to ask about the due date or congratulate me after the baby was born. They do not visit, text, or call except to advertise their official meeting. They live nearby, but they feel like anything but neighborly.
Perhaps my standards for "good culture" are alien from theirs. I wouldn't be surprised. And as above, so below. There are things I'm not fond of about American culture, epsecially building a necessity for driving. I can see how a simmering dissatisfaction can be re-interpreted as contempt.
Anyway, I'm partially the kind of person you're talking about. So I'm open to answer questions.
One argument I heard is that it is a defensive measure against lowlife criminal element, it is deliberate act of segregation by car ownership. You won't have drug addicts or roaming homeless congregating around local subway station, if there is none around. Highly connected walkable city can work in culturally homogenous Scandinavian country of yesteryear, not as much with multicultural society with all its problems. So beware what you wish for.
That's a convenient story, but it's not really true. People started owning cars and moving to suburbs well before cities had crime and homelessness problems. (Certainly though cities having those problems doesn't make them appealing places to move to.) The truth is that it's just nice to live in a place where you have lots of space and have a mode of transportation that's quick, convenient, point-to-point and on-demand, and a lot of people have chosen to live that way. If you don't want to, then there are plenty of American cities you can move to where you can get by without a car.
True, but the original streetcar suburbs have largely been absorbed into the major metro areas they once sat outside of. The outer ring suburbs came after the construction of the freeways and the days of rage
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This doesn't mean anything, it's a proxy for:
"I hate change, but cannot say this as it's an unsympathetic argument"
"I dislike there may be marginally more traffic near me, or it'll take slightly longer to get a parking spot, but cannot say this as it makes me sound selfish"
"I am concerned that people with less money than my current neighbors may move here" (this is a really common YIMBY boogeyman but I actually doubt this one is common)
"I really fucking hate change"
More options
Context Copy link
Usually known as ADUs (accessory dwelling units)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link