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 -
When reading Is Seattle a 15-minute city? this morning, I couldn't help thinking about what's missing from it. For context, the 15-minute city is an urbanist idea about making every residential area a 15-minute walk to important amenities like grocery stores. It's a good idea if it could be achieved without incurring too many other costs, and it's the other costs that I couldn't help thinking about. Specifically, crime.
The metric "walking time to the nearest supermarket" I'm sure correlates closely to rate of property crimes. Where I live, homeless encampments tend to spring up close to grocery stores. These things are related.
I'm very sympathetic to concerns about car dependence, and how much better life could be if housing was built closer to stores, schools, and workplaces. But the problem is always crime. Requiring a car to get to a place disproportionately screens out would-be criminals, even if it also screens out some upstanding citizens who cannot or will not drive. Suburbia is the epitome of this phenomenon, where everything is too far from anything else to live without a car. In cities that are naturally denser, there are constant fights over zoning that dance around this issue but don't address it directly (at least when the participants are nominally progressive and need to be seen as non-discriminatory).
There's a more general point here, which is this: discrimination is required for a well-functioning society. I'm using 'discrimination' in the more technical sense here, as "To make a clear distinction; distinguish." The concept of statistical discrimination covers a lot of what I mean here, but discrimination based on signaling is important too.
Statistical discrimination is basically using Bayesian inference, using information that's already available or easy to get, to make inferences about hidden or illegible traits that predict some important outcome. In the context of walkability, people who don't own cars are more likely to commit crimes or to be bad customers and neighbors than people who do own cars. So you end up with a better-behaving local population if you require a car.
By discrimination based on signaling I mean things like choice of clothing, personal affect and mannerism, accent, vocabulary, presence of tattoos, etc. These things are useful for statistical discrimination, but they're under conscious control of the person in question, and they're hard to fake. They basically prove "skin in the game" for group membership. It takes time and effort to develop a convincing persona that will get you accepted into a different social class, and higher social classes have much stricter standards of behavior. Basically the guy speaking in Received Pronunciation, with no tattoos, who uses PMC vocabulary and dresses in upper-middle-class business attire is very unlikely to rob you, because it would be very costly to him. He'd lose his valuable class status for doing something so base.
Why is discrimination required for a well-functioning society? Because every choice is almost by definition discriminatory, and preferentially making positive-sum choices leads to a positive-sum society. Imagine if you made zero assumptions about a new person you met, aside from "this is a human." You wouldn't be able to talk to them (you'd be assuming their language), you wouldn't know what kind of etiquette to use, you'd have no idea whether they're going to kill you for doing something they consider obscene; you wouldn't be able to get any value out of the interaction. If instead you inferred based on their appearance that they're a middle-class elderly American woman who speaks English, you could immediately make good choices about what to talk about with them.
I'm sure this is all pretty obvious to anyone rationalist-adjacent, but I had a confusing conversation with a more left-leaning relative recently who seemed to have internalized a lot of the leftist ideas that are basically of the form "statistical discrimination is useless." Setting aside topics outside the Overton window like HBD, even for questions like "does the fact that a person committed a crime in the past change the likelihood they'll commit a crime in the future, all else equal?" the assumption seemed to be "no." Michael Malice's assertion seems to be true, that answering "are some people better than others" is the most precise way to distinguish right-wing from left-wing.
Bringing this to the culture war, there is a scientific or factual answer to every question "does observable fact X predict outcome Y", and pointing out that leftist assumptions contradict the evidence is how to convince reasonable people that the leftist assumption is false. I'm speaking as a person living in one of the most left-leaning places in the country, so the false leftist assumptions are the ones that most harm my life. Rightist assumptions of course also contradict the evidence, but I don't have salient examples.
The astute observer will note that most of the leftist intellectual movement of the last 50 years is trying to poison the evidence (via ad hominem and other fallacious arguments). How can one improve the quality of evidence when the wills of so many high-status people are set against it?
P.S. I'm sorry for the emotional tone of this post. This community is the only place I have to talk about this and I appreciate your thoughts.
To me, this seems like one of those things where the disease is worse than the cure, but people don't realize it. Driving is very dangerous; for example, several times more Americans are killed every year in car crashes (including people outside of automobiles being hit). One could certainly argue about all of the relevant costs of crime vs cars, but at the very least it's worth thinking seriously about, and I suspect most Americans don't weigh them anywhere close to what really makes sense.
(I should emphasize, this doesn't mean I think crime doesn't matter, or people should just suck up having to deal with it, or anything like that. A number of American cities have done themselves a great disservice by failing to do anything about crime, homeless encampments, etc. and having lots of these things in your neighborhood is a legitimate concern.)
I believe you underestimate the side effects of the cure. Cars are a tremendous tool for personal freedom with all that entails. Making their ownership less common means curtailing exit rights for many, and placing more control in the hands of those that manage both public transport and the restrictive legislation that is supposed to enable this urban planning.
How much freedom do those cars provide to children, anyone with a disability that prevents them from driving, people who are too old to drive safely, or anyone for whom a car is a significant expense? Or even someone who just dislikes driving? Who gets to experience those exit rights when housing is so expensive?
Cars are still entirely dependent on the government decides to do. Where roads go, when roads are closed, how lights and signs are used to direct traffic flow, road maintenance, etc. I'm all for freedom, but heavily-subsidized "freedom" is a contradiction in terms and an illusion. Dense, walkable, urban environments with a mix of things are what people created spontaneously. Car-dependent suburban sprawl is what the top-down planners created over the past 70 years.
Yes, cars provide some benefits. They also have a lot of costs.
I can prove to you this way walking is bad too.
Surely, you must think walking is great - you can get to where you need to be, using only your feet! But what use the walking is to the toddlers, the disabled, the people who are so old or ill that they cannot walk? Or even someone who just hates to walk? What if it rains or snows outside? You could slip and fall and break your leg! And the medical costs after that would be horrendous!
Also, what about shoes - they are not free to, and in most places it is not safe to walk barefoot! Some people can not afford expensive shoes! And active walking ruins most of them in mere years. What if there's hot and sunny day? You'd need to bring a hat (more expenses!) and a sunscreen and possibly sunglasses, and maybe also a bottle of water, or you risk a heat stroke. It's not a simple business.
And then there are government regulations to consider too. You can't just walk where you want. There are traffic lights, and most of every street is allocated to cars, you can not walk there without the risk of being killed (and fined). You are confined to a small area on the sidelines. Some of them may also be closed for maintenance, etc. And you can not just walk into many buildings, security would yell at you and demand you walk out. And the walkways need to be cleaned and paved, and somebody has to pay for that. It is clear that your imaginary "freedom" of walking is just a naive illusion brought on by ignorance. Those pavements did not pave themselves, and did not maintain or clean themselves. Dense, walkable, urban environments is what the top-down planners created over the past 70 years.
Yes, walking has some benefits. But there are also a real lost of costs.
"Unlimited cosmic
powerfreedom" is the argument of car enthusiasts. Of course all modes of transportation depend on government decisions/can be interfered with by the government. As far as I know, urbanists don't tend to try to pretend otherwise. And yet even with that admission, most of your arguments are just silly. The cost of a car vs the cost of walking? There's no comparison, so I don't know what you're even trying to do. "Lots of space is dedicated to cars and that makes it dangerous to walk" is exactly the argument that urbanists make, and claim that this situation is bad. And this claim:Is just so utterly wrong and backwards. Taking something I said and changing a word so that it's completely wrong doesn't make an argument, it just makes you look like you're trolling.
Compared to utility? There is. How much would you spend to be able to walk 500 miles? How much would you spend to be able to walk with a ton of load?
I've seen a few cities hostile to personal transport, and it didn't make them significantly more friendly to walk. It just made them less convenient to those for whom walking, for one reason or another, is not the preferable mode of transportation.
But is it? I mean, cities certainly existed for thousands of years, but were those "15 minute walkable" cities? Was everything accessible to a person in medieval city within a 15 minute walk? Or did you have, for example, to keep a large, smelly, expensive beasts to get to some places and to bring some things - or pay people that have such to bring yourself and your things places?
The point wasn't to make a good argument. The point was to show the original argument wasn't good.
I'm not doing either of those things on a regular basis, and 500 miles is by definition outside of my metropolitan area and thus irrelevant to the question of city design. I don't really see why it makes sense to spend thousands of dollars a year on a car if the reason to do so is things that I do maybe once per year, but you do you I guess.
Most people did walk, yes. Your average person probably could not afford to take a horse everywhere. But do you think that history jumped straight from the middle ages to 1960? Why not at least try to make the best comparison possible, and look at what cities were like, say, after the invention of trains and street cars?
The statement I made was true, so I don't know why you think making an incorrect statement shows anything.
Are we discussing your personal life, or societal patterns? If the former, then you are the expert and I have nothing to say here. If the latter, then my experience shows a lot of people travel distances that are not easily walkable every single day, multiple times. How long you can walk - not 500 miles, but how about 10 miles, 20? Can you walk it every day, back and forth, day to day, rain or shine? Maybe you can. I wouldn't.
Then don't buy a car and leave it to people that so see it. I, for example, see a lot of sense and so, obviously, do many other people - do you think all people that buy cars are stupid? No, we aren't - we derive a lot of utility from it. Much more than the cost. I am not sure how typical my costs are, so let's see: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/auto-loans/total-cost-owning-car - this site says the car driven 15k/yr (more than I drive) costs about $10k/year. Would I agree to forgo all the use of my car in exchange for $1000/month? Not likely. Just a simple calculation - if I only use it twice a day (it's likely more) and I only drive to places which can be covered by $20 taxi/Uber ride (also not completely true) I'm already over $1000. And that's not even counting various additional utility.
Did they only walk? Did they walk if they had a choice not to walk?
No, it was not. People lived in non-dense-ubran places long before "past 70 years". And people in cities used horses - a lot. So much that there's a famous example of how people were worried they'd drown in horse manure right before the car was invented. Why do you think they had this worry if they could easily find anything within a 15-minute walk before top-down planners spoiled all the fun? Why they insisted on keeping and using those massive, unwieldy, smelly, voracious and dangerous beasts? Were they all stupid?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link