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 -
And if there aren't any ladders around, and Alice doesn't have anything Bob wants?
I guess she doesn't get what's on the shelf then, unless Bob is feeling magnanimous.
And if 'getting what's on the shelf' is a metaphor for survival? Maintenance of human dignity?
Can you be certain that the precedent that you set won't come back to bite you in the hindquarters?
I would rather live in a world where the sink-or-swim, devil-take-the-hindmost, law-of-the-jungle social-Darwinist mode of organisation is left in the past and remembered as one of humanity's many mistakes, even if it means that if I become extremely wealthy my taxes will support people who are not useful to me.
Then she dies or becomes undignified. Two very different things, I might point out. Bob may find it undignified to act as Alice's fetch-and-carry servant.
Oh, certainly, because I'm setting no precedent at all. If the situation appears reversed, Alice-partisans will find some reason this principle doesn't apply.
And how is that not a worse outcome than Bob being expected to pay a slightly higher marginal tax rate‽
'Getting things off a high shelf because he is taller' is a metaphor for paying a higher tax rate because he can more easily afford to.
In the UK, the government eats everything. I pay:
And everything is hideously expensive because whenever I go to the doctor or anything involving any skilled professional I (and any of their customers including the poor) effectively have to fund their extortionate taxes on top of mine!
Like, I know that ‘pay another 2% of tax that you can easily afford to make sure that the needy are taken care of’ sounds good but it’s a fantasy. The above is where that sentiment ends up. Very quickly you get ‘the government has to tax everyone to make sure everyone gets the support they need to pay their taxes’.
I do not believe that there is any level of taxation that does not either blight the lives of half the population and slowly melt the economy or clearly and visibly fails to take care of the needy. “The poor will always be with you” is not a moral statement, it’s just a fact. We cannot, long-term, take care of everybody that we might like to. And no politics, no ideology however well-meaning can make it otherwise.
--Corvos, 2026
--Paul Ehrlich, 1968
--Alfred Velpeau, 1839
Same
schistcheems mindset, differentdaycentury....You will note that I said nothing about technology. Technology may change this fact, although it's less able to do so given that poverty unlike famine frequently deals in relative goods (status-related), in goods that are extremely inelastic (land) and in goods that are able to absorb extremely high spending (medicine). If you would like to attempt the creation of technologies that will alleviate the majority of poverty-related conditions, then taxing R&D out of existence as they do in the UK and Europe is not the way to go.
More to the point, if you have an argument to make, then please make it. Rolling your eyes and saying 'oh, well, they said we'd never X too lol' is not an argument, and it's beneath you.
I don't think we will ever have cross-galactic teleportation either, but that's what they used to say about going faster than horses amirite? They used to think we'd never have energy too cheap to meter, and actually we don't have energy too cheap to meter, and it's getting more and more expensive. As is almost everything in my country except electronics, because we have reached the apparent end of a very specific confluence of beneficial factors. Some things are possible, some things are impossible, sometimes we turn out to be wrong about what those are.
If you think I am wrong, please make your case. And please explain why your preferred policies have failed so badly in the UK.
Land may be inelastic, but the inelasticity of housing is a choice.
Also a choice; see the writings of Jack Devanney. (Summary will be posted below.)
Artificial constraints such as 'the elites and middle managers must not be stopped in their monkey-dominance games', 'land-owners must never see their assets not gain in value', 'advances in nuclear technology must not be used to make cheaper energy if they can instead reduce already minimal radiation exposure by epsilon', &c., &c.
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