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 idea, if implemented, would effectively cut off unsecured credit for borrowers with low credit. I could see an argument where as a society we say we won't give individuals with 530 credit scores any more credit, but doing it via interest rate caps is a very blunt tool to achieve this outcome (and I doubt this is the outcome Trump intends).
But while I could see an argument for not giving people with low credit scores more credit, it is not an argument I would make. Building back from a low credit score is a torturous process, but it takes much longer if you don't have...credit. And people with bad credit scores are often in financial situations where they need liquidity. There are plenty of shady loan sharks and pawn shops willing to provide it; at much more usurious rates and with much more deleterious consequences for failing to pay.
This is a populist play pure and simple. It does not seem to have been well thought through and would not be wise policy to implement. I've defended Trump's economic agenda in the past and thought (and still think) tariffs are a useful policy tool, but this proposal is simply a knee-jerk reaction to the Democrat narrative around affordability. Hopefully it has as short a shelf-life as the proposal for a 50 year mortgage.
More options
Context Copy link