site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29307 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
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Market price pretty much solves your issue with not wanting a homeless shelter next door. So long as it’s paid for/funded with market rationality. The local government probably builds the homesless shelter as long as they are rational - building the homeless shelter as cheaply as possible then it won’t be put in your backyard. It will be put in a poor persons backyard or around those who would rather have cheaper rent and a homeless shelter than people who are willing to pay a higher price to not live around homeless people.

The local government probably builds the homesless shelter as long as they are rational

What evidence have you ever seen from local government to indicate that rationality is prevalent or even present in most of their actions?

Reminds me of the meme that rich celebrities should welcome illegal immigrants to their homes and neighborhoods. They never take up the offer.

The local government probably builds the homesless shelter as long as they are rational - building the homeless shelter as cheaply as possible then it won’t be put in your backyard.

This is one of the wildest takes I've ever seen. I don't know of a single homeless shelter that was built according to this principle. They are almost always built to convenience the homeless in their preferred activities of panhandling, boozing, and harassing productive citizens.

You guys are probably right. I’m just close to a market absolutists and the issue here isn’t markets it’s politics encouraging nimbysm. No one by market principles would locate a homeless shelter on expensive real estate.

Well, no one by market principles would tolerate the current state of homelessness at all. It only exists because of publicly owned commons that are not policed as they would be if they were privately held. In addition, many of the public institutions that claim to have a monopoly on violence in a local area, would attack and imprison anyone who does take rational action with regard to their own private property.

The local government probably builds the homesless shelter as long as they are rational - building the homeless shelter as cheaply as possible then it won’t be put in your backyard.

The local government connives with some developer to give them a tax break on another project in exchange for the developer ceding the space for the homeless shelter, so they don't actually care about the cost of the lot.

Possible. But if you elect good leaders that want to provide public services efficiently then not an issue.

This isn’t an issue with nimby it’s an issue with your government.

Possible. But if you elect good leaders that want to provide public services efficiently then not an issue.

This IS efficient from the point of view of the government. They pay nothing.

if you elect good leaders

This is a more difficult problem than the original one he's grappling with, though.

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