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 -
It sounds like you've narrowed down to a specific value difference. While NIMBY isn't particularly strongly associated with conservatism/Republicans in the US (although, the left is often calling out liberals/Democrats, too), I often see people on the left asserting the strawman that the conservative worldview is "I've got mine, screw you." or the related "I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People" (I haven't actually seen that article before, but I've certainly seen the line repeated on Twitter a lot; scrolling down, that article also contains "I’ve got mine, so screw you").
I'm not sure there's much to gain by discussing further. You've found the fundamental values difference. Except maybe the YIMBY side could come up with arguments that your positions are actually somehow counterintuitively working against that value, but that seems unlikely. I guess there's the problem cited elsewhere in this thread that if you want businesses near you staffed with low-paid service workers, then those workers have to be able to afford housing of some sort vaguely nearby.
I have to admit, I don't care about other people as a general rule.
I care about some people: my wife and kids, my parents and siblings, close friends, social circle, coworkers (in descending order). Outside of that I care about people based on the value they bring. That can be direct value, e.g. the mailman who delivers packages, or indirect value, e.g. the people working at USPS's sorting center.
But I don't care at all about the people who bring negative net value. The homeless guy drugged out of his mind? If he died tomorrow I literally wouldn't feel sad at all. The single mother welfare-leech churning out 4 kids? Nope. Sam Bankman-Fried and his mother (who I consider her the upper-class equivalent of a welfare-leech)? Gone. Just fucking Thanos snap hordes of inner-city gangs and Women's Studies majors away.
I not only don't care about them, I fundamentally don't understand why people do. Does human life have intrinsic value? Yeah, some. But surely we all agree -- not that much right? Or else you would take all the money out of your bank account, go to one of the slums in India, and start saving lives left right and center at maybe $100 a pop? And at least that little kid in the slum has the potential to be the next Srinivasa Ramanujan, whereas the 65 year old homeless drunk who shows up to the ER every two weeks has no chance?
(Obviously this is not to say that I want those people removed -- that sets a dangerous precedent because who decides?)
Law professors at stanford are 'the upper-class equivalent of a welfare leech'?
"Surely we can all agree - we don't have THAT much responsibility to the environment, right? Otherwise we'd have to stop using lead paint, leaded gasoline, maybe stop dumping oil into rivers - and, wow, what a mess that'd be."
What even is this argument? Surely if going to india and 'saving lives at 100/pop' (givewell estimates it at $5k) isn't worth doing, it is so because of ... some aspect of those lives or what saving them entails, and not because we're not already doing it.
The difference is that saving the environment requires a coordinated action, but saving a kid in India does not. Any modestly well-off person from the U.S. can do it. So the fact that they don't is a revealed preference (vs. just a consequence of tragedy of the commons).
EAs use this contradiction to convince people to do more (by pointing out what you would do for someone in front of you). I don't have this contradiction -- I wouldn't do shit for many people in front of me either.
And yes, I stand by my assessment of Barbara Fried. Instead of passing a drug test to demonstrate purity of body, upper-class welfare leeches must pass a similar test put together by a granting agency to demonstrate purity of mind.
Here's her bibliography: https://law.stanford.edu/publications/?primary_author=Barbara%20Fried&page=1
... okay, and the revealed preference of conservatives and reactionaries is that they love porn. this doesn't tell us that porn is good the interesting claim isn't "do most normal people do X", because ... they're normal people, many just imitate what their friends or family or media does, some come up with their own ideas which aren't any better, the interesting claim is "is X worth doing". If the amount of value something has is determined solely by how much other people, at the present moment, value it - i guess handwashing in hospitals was valueless until semmelweis.
Those publications aren't inspiring at a glance, but they're probably better philosophy than the 75th percentile philosophy paper. And she spent a lot of time teaching law too (apparently they both stopped teaching after FTX) - which isn't particularly parasitic. I'm not gonna look too deeply into this, but even if she has much more prestige than she should for a law school teacher, that's hardly welfare leech
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's a pretty simple explanation that already aligns with your stated values: Caring about the homeless guy on the street can convert him into a productive member of society (maybe one of the people working at USPS's sorting center).
There's certainly a fine line between "caring" and "enabling" that needs to be debated, but my impression of most of the YIMBY crowd is that their "care" for the homeless guy stems from the same rational self-interest that you're describing.
More options
Context Copy link
In any society containing modern progressives (ie. postwar ones), you don't exactly get a choice on the matter. These people represent enemy civilians at best and enemy soldiers at worst, in a zero sum war against your basic rights and interests - to stop half way at indifference is to declare the bizzare position of neutrality towards yourself.
More options
Context Copy link
Isn't this more or less what Effective Altruism is trying to do?
Notwithstanding the fact that the most dedicated EAs sometimes suffer burnout, it does seem there's at least some people putting their money where their mouth is in terms of valuing the lives of humans.
Yes, there's definitely some people that care.
But the vast majority just profess to care and their actions (i.e. revealed preferences) suggest otherwise.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You're doubtless familiar with the story of the ants and the grasshoppers. Do you recognize a difference between the ants' reply to the Grasshoppers' demands and the phrase, "I've got mine, screw you"? Does it matter how and why the ants got theirs, or is the question of desserts eternally confined to the present state?
What's your evidence that "Caring About Other People" (which people? caring how?) delivers superior outcomes to "not" caring about other people? The policies Progressives describe as "Caring about other people" don't appear to preclude encouraging people to make risky choices, and then standing back and clucking regretfully as the consequences drive them to various forms of ritual public suicide united by thorough degradation and languorous agony. I personally would rather be swiftly dead or permanently jailed than live out the fitful and deranged trajectory of Travis Berge to its bitter conclusion. A system of "caring about other people" that reliably proliferates lots of Berges, and worse, evidently involves a somewhat nonstandard definition of "caring".
So long as such systems exist, it behooves the responsible and the prudent to wall them off from everything of value to the greatest extent possible, for the simple reason that instinctive, atavistic destruction will always be cheaper and easier than the amassment of value, of the good, of virtue. Actual care for others demands as much: those persuing goodness should be protected and encouraged, those pursuing evil should be given every incentive to change their ways, and blocked from executing their designs in the meantime.
...All of which is a long way to make a simple point: The claims you're implicitly making are completely demolished by multiple decades of observed results. "Caring about other people", in the peculiar way Progressives define the phrase, demonstrably makes the world into a rotting sewer.
If the ants say "I've got mine, go build your own, and if you can't do so before winter that isn't my problem" then we are in The Parable of the Ant and the Grasshopper, and we are supposed to feel at least somewhat sympathetic to the ants. NIMBYism is where the ants say "I've got mine, and if you build your own I will shoot you" which puts us in a kind of reverse It's a Bug's Life.
More options
Context Copy link
Apologies for the confusion. I had no intention of claiming one set of values is "superior" to another. In fact, I thought I directly stated that the difference in goals meant that debating which approach is "superior" isn't a meaningful conversation to have in this context.
More options
Context Copy link
The innocence project reliably puts out stories of the wrongfully convicted or executed. If you propose a general increase in 'swift death' or 'permanent jail', how do we balance Berges against Cameron Willinghams? Our system reliably proliferates Berges, as it does pedophiles, fraudsters, schizophrenics, people with nine toes ... because out of hundreds of millions of americans, five hundred people who are released and later reoffend is genuinely difficult to avoid.
Not that you don't have a point, but the evidence here isn't enough to claim "progressives demonstrably make the world into a rotting sewer". Especially since crime rates, over the past 400 years, have consistently trended down, as everything's become more progressive. This is one of the issues I take with neoreaction generally - a monarchist claims crime was better under monarchy because of strict order, etc, but I've never seen this really elaborated upon, other than 'I read lots of victorian literature and they say so', yet crime seems to have decreased generally.
I think in cases like Berges, some form of institutionalization is probably a massive improvement over the current method. That is to say, if I knew my life were going to go down Berges' trajectory, I would rather be institutionalized, and failing that I would rather be dead. His fate is viscerally horrifying to me, and the fact that we, from my perspective, encourage and allow such states to play themselves out without meaningful intervention is unconscionable.
Berges didn't need the full weight of the war-on-drugs criminal justice system. He didn't need a SWAT takedown. But neither did he need to be treated to a revolving-door parody of civil consequences. Once it became apparent that he was completely incapable of making good choices under his own power, he should have been locked up in some sort of minimum-security prison, there to either have the opportunity to rebuild some semblance of personal character, or at least be protected and to protect others from his own worst impulses.
Nor is it obvious to me that our society proliferates Bergeses in the same way it proliferates schizophrenics and people with nine toes. I think there is a fairly direct causation from the absurdly permissive social policies, particularly around highly addictive drugs, crime, and vagrancy, and the way his life ended. He lost control, and the social structures around him refused to help him in any way that worked or mattered.
Piss and shit on the streets, everywhere, together with trash, filth, used needles, infectious waste. Rats, and with them outbreaks of vermin-borne plagues. These are some of the highlights of the social experience in west-coast Progressive strongholds. I think "rotting sewer" is a reasonable summation. I don't want to live in such conditions, and I don't want to share a polity with the people who create and sustain them.
As for crime...I'm wondering if you've checked the stats lately. Here's 1900 to 2000. Here's the recent years, including the eye-popping 30% increase in 2020 that correlated with a major Progressive push to reform policing. I don't see how one matches those figures to a claim of "crime generally going down." We are currently sitting somewhere around five times the murder rate we enjoyed prior to the first modern Progressive era of the 1920s-30s, and the downward slope we enjoyed following the massive increase of the second progressive era of the 1960s-70s seems to be well and truly over.
Worse, one must consider the staggeringly massive investments and restructurings our society has made over the last century, all in an explicit attempt to solve the problem of violent crime. From militarized policing, mass-incarceration, ubiquitous surveillance, forensic science, to trauma medicine, to the increasingly regimented and invasive educational and psychological interventions, we've expended vast sums of money and human lives, and done massive, highly questionable modifications to our core social institutions, many of them with their own harmful side effects. And all this, by our best evidence, could only partially slow the long-term increase, and that to only a limited degree. Now we're headed back up again, quite rapidly, with our previous policy options thoroughly expended. When the murder rate skyrocketed in 2020, that was with a century of crime-suppression and harm-mitigation techniques, many of them ruinously expensive, already in place or expended.
So now... what?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I apologise in advance for posting in response to your comment rather than any of these other ones, but it seemed as good a place as any.
Put simply: NIMBYism is not a position where we just don't care about other people. That would be the maximised libertarian one, where people get to do as they like. NIMBYs care about what other people do lots and lots, be they OP or anyone else. So, by all means, please do - please do go for a regime that doesn't care about people. I think it would be better than a system that cares too much or one that is actively malicious.
I agree, and that in fact was my entire point. The person I responded to chose the "NIMBYs don't care about others" framing. I'm attempting to point out that they're using an extremely non-central definition of "caring" that delivers nonsensical results.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's not just progressives who fall into this trap. I have seen many on the right who are preoccupied with other people, too. I think both sides have a tendency to moralize , but about different things.
That's fine if people want to make stupid choices. Just don't make me pay for the externalities or make me have to pretend that these are values to aspire to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link