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 -
There were two top level comments yesterday that I didn't get a chance to respond to before they got buried. Fortunately, they dovetail nicely with one another, enough for me to create a new top-level explaining my take on things. The first of these asked what a conservative was, and while I don't really have a horse in that race I did come across Russell Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles. In many ways, Kirk is a relic, as it seems unlikely that he'd fit in with what calls itself conservatism today. But look at the first principle:
Now, I'll say as a preliminary matter that Kirk and other right-wing intellectuals suffer from the same problem as left-wing intellectuals in that they tend to speak in a kind of psychobabble that on the left results in Academicese and on the right in Biblical allusions and references to other people who have been dead for 200 years, and with both one predisposed to agree with the arguments finds himself nodding along without realizing that there isn't much there to even agree with. That being said, this principle illustrates conservative thought better than anything else I've read. As a liberal, I disagree with it as a matter of principle, and I could make a lot of normal, rational arguments about why it's wrong, but I don't find that very interesting. What I find much more interesting are the weird ways in which belief in this principle manifests itself among conservatives, and how these manifestations have convinced me that it's wrong more than references to Seneca or Thomas Aquinas ever could. And to see those manifestations, you need look no further than the discussion on food stamps that followed.
It's apparent to most that this board leans somewhat to the right, and I noticed several themes among what was said. I'm not going to call anyone out by name, but I will quote where appropriate. The most common one, both here and in popular discussion, is the desire to prohibit purchases of certain items, which some states have already begun doing. As a said in an earlier post on the topic, these items generally fall into three categories:
You can name certain staple items that nobody finds objectionable, like ground beef, chicken breasts, eggs, milk, etc. But then you get to the edge cases. Everyone agrees that grains are a staple of the diet. But what counts as a grain? Consider the following:
Someone in line behind a woman whose shopping cart contained a bag of rice, a box of spaghetti, Oreos, Ritz crackers, Chex, Nutri-Grain bars, Knorr alfredo noodles, pancake mix, Mrs. T's pierogis, and bakery Italian and was paying for it with food stamps nobody would probably bat an eye. But the person whom I originally compiled this list in response to insisted that everything but the first two should be excluded. A number of people below commented that food stamp recipients should be given no more than a basic subsistence diet.
Now, I don't have a problem with prohibiting pop and candy as some states have begun doing, at least not in and of themselves. The concern I have is that if I get 50 people who believe in some version of the above and ask them to make a call on a bunch of selected items, I'm not going to get any consistency out of their answers. There's no line everyone agrees on. The obvious response is "Well, nobody's going to agree on everything, but you have to draw the line somewhere." Well, we did draw the line somewhere, 60 years ago: No prepared foods, no alcohol, no tobacco. Everything else that's a food product is fair game.
Some people proposed away that would seem to skirt the problem by suggesting that the government provide food directly, "like they used to do", or focus on core items, like WIC. First, the government didn't used to operate the Food Stamp program like that. What they probably have in mind is government programs where agricultural surplus products were processed into shelf-stable products like powdered eggs and distributed to low-income people. While there are no longer dedicated pick-up locations, this program never went away, the food is just distributed through food banks and programs like Meals on Wheels. WIC is a different animal entirely in that participants are limited to purchasing specific items each month. But it's not a general food program, as it only deals with a few limited categories. Excepting things like fruits and vegetables which are usually sold generically, program guidelines limit eligible items down to specific brands. The program was developed to address specific nutritional needs of pregnant women and young children, and was never intended as a general food program. It doesn't scale as such.
I will briefly touch on the even more ridiculous idea that the government should just provide Hello Fresh or MREs, if only because it leads nicely into my next point. These items cost around $10/meal. Current guidelines for a single person max out around $10/day. I don't know what advantage these have that's strong enough to warrant tripling the program cost, an interesting supposition considering that many seemed to think that the $300/month that's budgeted for an adult is entirely too much. Now, I don't want to comment on this based on personal experience because my own food consumption is not that of a poor person looking to stretch his dollar; I spend a lot more than that on food, but since I'm not on assistance I assume I'm allowed. But keep in mind that the government doesn't set these amounts arbitrarily. If you want to know what goes into it, feel free to take a gander at the USDA publication Thrifty Food Plan 2021, and you'll get an excruciatingly detailed look at how they determine these things based on sample menus, nutritional requirements, and current prices, down to details like how a 12–13 year-old male's consumption of seeds, nuts, and soy products should total 92c/week following an economical budget.
The final broad theme had less to do with the program itself as the people who used it. Complaining about drug addicts using it. Being disgusted by fat people using it. Complaining about 25-year-old women using it. Saying it's clearly intended for people laid off from the mill. I bring this up last because it really goes to the heart of conservatism and the first principle. The idea underlying all of these objections is one of deserving. Certain poor people don't deserve access to government food assistance. Those who do don't deserve to derive any pleasure from eating beyond not starving. Cake and Pepperidge Farm brand bread products are luxuries you have to earn. Underlying all of this, of course, is a sense of moralism; alcoholism and obesity are moral failings and until you overcome them you're not deserving of assistance. Work is virtuous in and of itself so unless you're working you don't deserve any luxuries. Even the disabled don't get a pass anymore because we all know that they could probably work if they wanted to and they're just faking it to get their free Dr. Pepper and avoid work, which we all know they'd do if they were virtuous. Instead they're just moochers trying to ride off of the system. If any of us had any sense we'd do the same, except we're all too virtuous to ever dream of doing such a thing.
It's this last point that really sums it all up, the idea that the system is there to be gamed, largely is gamed, that there exists an advantage in trying to game it, and the self-congratulation that comes along with not gaming it. To make a seasonal reference, it's as if we are Christ tempted in the desert. Except anyone with half a brain knows that nobody on food stamps is getting any advantage from the system. For a single individual, the income limit is about $2600/month. Would you want to live on that in exchange for a benefit that maxes out at $300/month? And other dubious benefits, like reduced rent on a small apartment in a questionable area? And noticed I said maximum benefit; if you make anywhere near the limit you are only getting a fraction of that. I don't know how much but even if you're getting the whole thing it doesn't seem like a great deal. "But if I weren't working, I'd get the whole thing, and it might be worth it being poor if I didn't have to go to work." No, it wouldn't. You don't have to work, and unless your hobbies are watching daytime broadcast television or hanging around outside a Co-Go's, I believe you'd find yourself bored with the welfare lifestyle rather quickly.
Conservatives know this deep down, but they don't want to admit it because it conflicts with the First Principle. If there is an absolute, unchanging moral framework, then we can judge people based upon it. And to compound things even further, they are self-arbiters of this framework. They know what it is inherently, and if anyone tells them otherwise, they're just liberals trying to infect the culture. It makes about as much sense as someone confidently saying that frozen burritos are a luxury item that should only be available to the deserving. Because when it comes to any moral obligation on the part of ourselves, there is silence. No conservative criticizes food stamps on the one hand and speaks of an obligation to help the poor on the other. For all the Biblical allusions, I can't find the part where charity has to be earned through moral virtue. The moralism seems to be confused, solipsistic, incoherent. For his part, Russell Kirk was at least a generous man who was known to help strangers in ways that few of us ever will. But I'm not sure that he was really a conservative.
We're not talking about the gucci mres given to our warfighters that include coffee, skittles, and pizza. We're talking about something like the humanitarian daily ration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_daily_ration
A day's worth of food in a pouch for less than $5, ready to eat. Redirect those food drops away from africa and send them straight to baltimore.
More options
Context Copy link
This might have been a valid argument in 1989 but nowadays many people can do a remarkable amount of entertaining themselves with no additional cost if they have a computer and a broadband. Anyone academically inclined with an interest like ancient philosophy that doesn't have commercial utility can do a lot of reading and writing with just a small apartment and an internet connection.
More options
Context Copy link
This is, essentially, incorrect and why your point ends up being silly.
People on food stamps often have brand new 70k+ SUVs. Are they spending their entire income on said SUV and living in it? No. The system is being gamed with hidden income, usually grey market, but often black. And living in a questionable area? Thats where these people grew up! They and their ancestors are why it is questionable! Its fish in water at worst, often they prefer it and actively object to anyone trying to improve the place their ancestors ethnically cleansed by persons of another race.
How often?
13% of Californians receive at least some EBT. Is it really unbelievable that 13% of people actually earned less than the EBT threshold (about $50k for a household of 3)? I could present arguments about income distributions but if you think it's not being reported I don't think you'd find them convincing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, the underlying objection is to the lack of need. Conservatives view charity as primarily to cover a lack of ability to provide for yourself.
All three examples given in the prior post show a lack of need:
Looking at how the US government describes the SNAP program I think the conservative view has the right of it here:
The three people described above can afford nutritious groceries with fewer SNAP benefits than they're getting. They further appear to be putting the saved money towards other luxury items. The purpose of SNAP is not helping people purchase luxury goods. If you think it should be I welcome you to donate your own money and ask you don't try to take mine.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean…obviously yes? I don’t even buy store bought cake or Pepperidge Farm bread, and I’m not on the dole. Why should my tax dollars pay for your luxuries? Nobody has a moral right to cookies!
More options
Context Copy link
Georgia expanded Medicaid with work requirements (which are coming to every state soon) in 2023. So far they've paid Deloitte about $90m to enroll about 10k people, with 2/3 of that cost being administrative. Surprisingly, that's not that terrible compared to Georgia's average of $5k medicaid spending per enrollee, but still quite a bit of waste to cover what should be a healthier population.
More options
Context Copy link
As I understand it, the Conservative position is something like that there are still jobs that kind of suck. Electricians have been going out in 50mph winds, working on the power poles lately. There are people repairing roofs in Phoenix in the summer. There are people collecting garbage on single lane dirt driveways, where they have to back all the way down the driveway to get to the garbage bins. There are people working in the South Dakota oil fields, and on Alaskan fishing boats. They have to both get paid quite a lot, and also get negative blowback from not working. There's a whole essential layer of work like that. I knew a man who was a sewage diver, and was married with kids.
A big part of the illegal immigration "jobs Americans won't do" narrative is about how high the floor for labor is, due to forbidding low labor and poor person lifestyles, while also providing more benefits.
Of course, I say this, but don't necessarily want to do those jobs as currently constituted (and couldn't physically do most of them), and am strongly in favor of further automation to make them less difficult.
More options
Context Copy link
SNAP benefits are about a thousand dollars a household per month: commercially, a 12-pack of MREs is $150. Let's assume we can get a bulk discount and get 12 meals for $125. That's 96 meals per month - 3 per day for four people, plus 3-6 extra for variety. It's not the most cost efficient, but it's shelf-stable, doesn't require utensils or a stove, and non-transferable. The paternal autocrat in me also likes the synergy with military production. What's not to like?
I'm not sure what kind of math you're using where 96 meals is three per day for any more than one person.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Can't pass up a lob like that, 2nd Thessalonians 2:10: "If a man does not work, neither should he eat."
3:10, not 2:10.
More options
Context Copy link
That was written in a very different time, when food was a lot less abundant, and there was always room for more people to contribute to its production even if they were what economists call 'unskilled'.
When Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes to feed the five thousand, he didn't make any attempt to deny them to 'men who did not work'. It took nearly twenty centuries, but we have multiplied our loaves and fishes, and much else besides, to where we can feed not five thousand, but eight billion. (Is this one of the "greater things than these" alluded to in John 14:12?)
More options
Context Copy link
Paul was much more based than many modern Christians (Protestants) are prepared to accept. They'd rather reject his teachings or insist they only ever applied to the primary audience of the letters. Also from 1 Timothy when speaking about caring for widows:
Note that there's room in the above for accepting charity on behalf of your family. Don't be proud and all that. But if you have a family member on food stamps, and you're not, you're a piece of shit and I don't care what you think your taxes have to do with it.
A lot of Paul's letters need to be read in the context of the audience he was writing to, and as far as I can tell, it seems as though some of Paul's early audiences literally believed the world was about to end, and therefore had concluded some combination of 1) ordinary morality does not apply any more, and 2) we don't need to plan or work for the future. There is no point to either if the world is about to end.
Paul, at least in his early letters, probably believes that the world is about to end as well. (cf. 1 Cor 7:26, "in view of the impending crisis".) However, he spends a long time trying to shut down the people who have concluded that therefore nothing matters and they can do what they like. 1 Cor 6:12-20 and 1 Cor 10:23-33 seem to be arguing with the hedonists, who think that because the Law has ceased to apply they can do anything they like. 2 Thess 3:6-15 seems to be arguing with the layabouts - people who sponged off the community's charity, probably thinking that there is no reason to lay foundations for a future that will never arrive. We can also see that part of the context is Paul's defense of his own ministry - he himself lived off charity, as a wandering teacher hosted by different communities of believers, and it sounds as if some might have accused Paul himself of taking advantage of his hosts. So in 3:7 he argues that he himself was not idle, and that he would never countenance idleness.
Compare also the Didache, which requires, in chapters 12 and 13, that groups of believers offcer charity and assistance to other believers who come to stay with them. But it puts some limitations on this:
You must welcome and assist believers for a few days, but only a few days, lest they take advantage of you. Believers who want to stay longer must work to support themselves and the community.
I think this is all pretty common sense, as an attempt to balance a strong imperative towards charity and hospitality along with a desire to not be taken advantage of.
If we want to draw a lesson from that for today's politics, I think the principles are obvious and hard to argue with. Provide some charity and assistance for the needy. Require everybody to work as far as they are reasonably able. Do not let yourself be taken advantage of by those who seek to live in idleness.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'd prefer food support be produce, grains, flour, sugar, eggs, dairy, meat etc. This isn't about health, I'm giving away everything needed to make cookies, rather I prefer that because, I'd like the recipient to contribute. They're not contributing money, instead they'll contribute time.
Similar thing with housing. I'd love for homesteading to make a return. Give people smaller parcels of land and plans and training and access to materials and let them construct their homes.
I prefer this because, I hope the recipients feel a sense of fullfillment from contributing to their own needs. I want everyone to be more self reliant, rich or poor.
More options
Context Copy link
The current market rate for prepared meals being approximately $10 is without economies of scale and assuming a decent profit margin. It should be within the capabilities of the government to make this more efficient, even if likely the pork would be barrelled.
You're also assuming that long-term healthcare isn't also largely being covered for the food stamp population by government spending. This thereby incentivizes some sort of adequate nutritional profile
More options
Context Copy link
You don't need to ban every grain item that isn't efficient. You just need to ban ones that are particular problems. If you're trying to prohibit Pop-Tarts, maybe fancy Italian bread is halfway between regular bread and Pop-Tarts, but it isn't bought with a frequency that is also halfway between regular bread and Pop-Tarts.
The question I'm asking is why you find pop-tarts so problematic in the grand scheme of things.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I wouldn’t describe myself as a conservative per se, nor did I take part in the recent
brutal framemogging of junkfoodgooning EBT-maxxerskerfuffle regarding food stamps ‘round these parts, but allow me to steelman a little:yes_chad.jpg
Government policy should encourage the kind of behavior that will eventually lead people to reasonable self-reliance. We should certainly not be subsidizing the undeserving poor, that is to say, those who could work but just don’t want to. The more luxurious the benefits of welfare, the less incentive there is for its recipients to wean themselves off the dole and become productive, independent adults.
I can’t tell if you’re being serious here, and nor am I a Christian myself, but I would wager that a conservative Christian would rebut your point by distinguishing between 3 very different things: (1) God’s unconditional grace and love for mankind, (2) freely-given (human) charity, and (3) taxpayer-funded welfare. Perhaps God’s grace permits you to enter the Kingdom of Heaven regardless of your earthly transgressions, but nowhere does Scripture say that there will be no temporal consequences for sin and vice.
More options
Context Copy link
Link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link