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 -
I do not see the problem, literally. Housing as an investment is merely a curiosity, if the prices of houses crash, that will not affect the people living in their houses (unless they got terrible mortgage terms, in which case you can legislate to make them unenforceable).
I might as well argue that a breathable atmosphere will permanently ruin the market for bottled air, or that eradicating smallpox permanently reduced the demand for medical treatments.
Good things are good. Anyone arguing that actually fifth order effects actually dominate and make things net negative is, on priors, very likely full of shit.
Of course, a well-meant intervention like a rent cap will unleash the terrifying and incomprehensible alien deity that is kept barely contained by a complicated and humanly meaningless ritual, which only cares about prices being the supply-demand equilibrator. But this does not mean that high housing prices are moral, just that we must pay respect to the alien god and not mess with housing prices directly.
Establishing a land value tax is a good way to fix housing costs. Land has a supply elasticity of just about zero, high land prices serve no practical benefits. Tax it so much that owners will become indifferent towards owning land.
Of course, this will fuck over people who invested their pension fund in real estate. Great, I don't care. Investing in a supply-limited good of which people need a certain amount to survive is not an ethical activity. I am sure that when the French revolution came around, quite a lot of people went bankrupt from deals and marriages which they had been sure would be highly profitable. And when methamphetamine became prohibited, that likely also destroyed some people's life savings. Just be glad if there will not be beheadings, this time. (If you want to ethically invest in a product with a limited supply, buy bitcoin instead. People can live while using zero BTC. They can not live while using zero square meters.)
More options
Context Copy link