site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29295 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023

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.

11
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

homeless shelters [...] gave them first-hand and literal application of “yes in my backyard”

YIMBYs aren't advocating for new homeless shelters, they're advocating for more residential development, generally - and, at the margin, those units will be filled by normal people who are able to pay slightly less than current residents are, not the homeless. (Maybe affordable unit requirements mess with this? idk) Maybe if somewhere went full YIMBY rents would drop a lot, but that seems unlikely imo. YIMBYs claim more housing will help with homelessness not because poor druggies will be able to live alongside rich families, but because increases in stocks everywhere means more rich-ish people can live near you, freeing up units in middle-class areas for middle-class people, who'll put less pressure on poorer areas ... etc.

Coase's theorem relies on zero transaction costs, which are not present IRL when negotiating between diffuse collections of residents and state and local governments. And it guarantees pareto efficiency, which (by definition) leaves massive improvements on the table if a few people are very stubborn, e.g. strongly prefer 'not in my backyard' even over being paid.

So is it that high prices, specifically, keep out the wrong kinds of people? That would still allow a lot of building that might only lower prices somewhat. And is it really worth spending 25-35% of everyone's income on rent to maintain that? Even if [high rent, no building, good communities] is better than [low rent, lots of building, bad communities], there must be a way to achieve 'good communities' without banning building - although not necessarily a politically viable one.

YIMBYs aren't advocating for new homeless shelters, they're advocating for more residential development, generally - and, at the margin, those units will be filled by normal people who are able to pay slightly less than current residents are, not the homeless.

I think the definition of YIMBY/NIMBY has changed a bit. When I first heard it in my highschool class, my teacher was ranting about progressives who were like "Homeless shelters are so important! We need to do more for the poor!" but who would blanche and try to stop any such projects if they were being built nearby their own home. The initial emphasis was originally Not In My Backyard, it was about hypocrisy. But the counter-movement that's emerged, YIMBY's, is more Yes in My Backyard, they're more about just getting stuff built in general and tearing down red tape, they aren't actually organizing to build homeless shelters nearby themselves.

Maybe affordable unit requirements mess with this? idk

"New residential development" in NIMBY cities (as opposed to rural America) usually means tearing down existing single-family homes on large lots and replacing them with high-density housing on small lots, which consists of multi-floor, multi-family apartments, at least 20% affordable or subsidized units, and no yards. While the developer makes a lot of money on these due to the high-density, the price paid per household is almost always lower than the area average, the area loses some of its greenery, and the average social class of the area falls.

I think getting rid of the affordable housing requirement would result in some developers focusing on large high-density, high-cost, high-quality condos near in-demand areas, but the affordable housing requirement puts a limit on unit sizes and quality overall, and makes NIMBY the equilibrium position of a neighborhood.

I'm a YIMBY and I think that so-called affordable housing requirements should be abolished. All houses are potentially affordable given a healthy market.

Yup. This is the way things are done in the rest of the world. If there is "affordable housing" it takes the form of little tiny apartments (like ... 6 square meters) which anyone can afford because they are minimalist. (Americans might call these tenements, and they are illegal.) Developers outside of the US seem to prevent claims of gentrification by grandfathering old tenants/owners into the new, larger units built on the same land.

"New residential development" in NIMBY cities (as opposed to rural America) usually means tearing down existing single-family homes on large lots and replacing them with high-density housing on small lots, which consists of multi-floor, multi-family apartments, at least 20% affordable or subsidized units, and no yards.

I don't know about percentages, but in my portion of a major NIMBY city, development usually does not tear down single family homes, but instead tears down poor-quality 1- or 2- story apartment buildings (often of the dingbat variety, which does not age well at all) and puts up in their place 10-12 story (4-5 of which is above-ground parking) stickbuilt cookie cutter "luxury" apartment blocks with rents that are far higher than the units replaced (because newer and nicer amenities, and often larger individual units).

The new units may be more expensive, but the net effect is still to depress prices generally. Yuppies move into the new "luxury" units, freeing up the mid-level housing they used to occupy for the middle class, in turn freeing up cheap housing for the poor.

Jesus, are those stickbuilt things really up to 12 storeys now? We're going to have a lot of deaths when one of those burns. Or are they only 6-7 wood above concrete?

6-7 stories above 4-5 concrete parking-garage floors.

Are you sure? The limit prescribed by the US's International Building Code for apartment buildings (occupancy R-2) has not been increased beyond five stories of heavy timber (type IV-HT) or four stories of dimensional lumber (type V) on top of a concrete podium, with a total building height of 85 feet for heavy timber or 70 feet for dimensional lumber.

But maybe your city uses a different code.

I think there may be a difference with newer engineered timber buildings, e.g.: https://www.fox6now.com/news/worlds-tallest-mass-timber-building-milwaukee-ascent

I think an engineer (def. local authorities sufficiently lobbied) can override this sort of thing -- it's expensive, but definitely is not physically unpossible:

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/real-estate/tallest-wood-residential-tower-world-vancouver-bc-1943876

I could be wrong and it could just be 5 above the parking. Regardless, they're tall. And expensive. And generally replacing old apartment/condo units instead of single-family homes.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats