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.
As somebody who grew up poor, those programs were awesome, and I'd like to see them expanded.
One of the biggest problems with food stamps back in the day was that you could just... sell them. When we stayed in one place long enough to get benefits, my mother would barter food stamps for booze or other ineligible goods. I, on the other hand, would get saltines and mustard for dinner, if we had the money for it. Sometimes I'd just get a big glass of water. The EBT card system probably makes that harder, but not so hard that it doesn't happen.
On the other hand, programs like government cheese were fantastic if you were a hungry kid. It wasn't fungible in the same way food stamps were, so it usually ended up sitting in a big box in the fridge and you could just... eat it if you were hungry. The real, undeniable, fundamental foodness of it acted as an extra guardrail against abuse in a way that is probably impossible with financial assistance
I don't know if it's maximally efficient in the purely utilitarian, ruthless economic way that a lot of people here prefer, but as a hungry kid having real food in the apartment was hard to beat.
There's gotta be a connection between a mama who makes those kinds of decisions and needing food stamps in the first place. That's enough to throw the whole program in the bin and go back to local neighborhood charity by people who can verify it's being put to good use.
Who will do this? Who will administer it?
Who will keep track of the budget or at very least the inflows and outflows of charity funds such that the neighborhood charity isn't unable to provide funds to people in need as they've run out of donations for the month?
How will this be more effective than the current system when you easily 1000x the number of "administrators" / people to coordinate this , human time is very expensive.
How will this work in major cities when a single tower can house 900 people?
What happens if this doesn't happen in a community? Say an impoverished trailer park. Or a condo tower without much by way of community. People will literally starve, are you okay with that?
Are you fine that a 3 year old child of drug addicts could credibly die or be very effected by malnutrition if your "grassroots community support organized by someone" program doesn't work across 300million people?
How about if that kid is 6 and severely malnourished, a teacher notices, and then they need to get hospitalized, a cost the hospital will inevitably eat because neither the child or parents will be paying for that. Are you okay with increased medical costs as a result of not giving people food?
It goes on and on, explain how you think this program will work, explain what you anticipate to happen when it falls apart in a locality due to any number of reasons, and then if any of this sounds more economically efficient than the status quo.
Charity organizations normally have treasurers and are required to publish annual financial statements. Outside of legal requirements, they can submit to the oversight of bigger charities.
Citation needed.
As the kids say, yes_chad.webp.
I think the standard libertarian argument is to make adoption easier. If the teacher (or the school?) cares so much, he can adopt the child. Don't force the hospital to pay for it.
My assumption, which anyone is free to disprove, is that the various levels of government, even as inefficient as they are, enjoy significant economies of scale when administering programs like welfare.
Downloading welfare to groups of people that are what, approximately Dunbar's number in size?
America has 343 million people, let's assume a "local community charity that knows everyone and thus knows who is deserving of benefits" serves 10x Dunbar's number so 1,500 people.
We now need approx 228,667 charities. Each one of those needs people to file tax returns, track inventory, collect donations, give out donations, etc. a charity requires administrators (or bureaucrats, if you will). Plus, those administrators need to pay rent, and buy food. So you need to pay them for their human labor time. So you now need a certain % of the charity donations to pay them. You also need to ensure no one who works for the charity is stealing money, so you need compliance and controls and good reporting. Holy shit, you've just invented government again, it turns out coordinating large numbers of humans to accomplish complex things is difficult and expensive.
A very quick research check shows an estimate of 700,000 - 900,000 government employees (all levels) who work in benefits administration, so each charity can employ no more than 3/4 people maximum, which is actually the bare minimum you need to have enough separation of duties for proper compliance around cash handling.
I don't see a world in which downloading all welfare responsibilities to magical "local charities" (which absolutely do not exist) even saves money over the status quo.
I am wildly not okay with people in the richest country starving to death. Similarly, and inevitably, I am incredibly not okay with $10,000-$100,000s of my tax dollars being wasted on medical care to fix someone's severe malnutrition that a few $1,000 of rice would have fixed a few weeks previously, that's just stupid.
Speaking of stupid, I think libertarianism is absolutely fucking retarded. This is not a personal attack, you strike me as an intelligent and thoughtful person, but the libertarian ideology is absolutely retarded. It is a luxury belief that can only exist because of the very large, very productive society that supports the people who mistakenly believe human civilization can work under it's framework.
I read that entire link you sent me, it was a mixture of good ideas and absolutely retarded ideas.
To begin with, the little intro box says
Perhaps they manage to draw a path between "virgin land that he finds and transforms by his labor" and modern society, but immediately this is retarded because there is no virgin land to find, period. So we're on a shaky foundation given this is what, 200 years put of date?
Next up:
We immediately are treated to libertarianism being retarded. If your "system" legally allows parents to let children starve to death, it's an awful system. And I'm very confident it is a system that will rapidly be outcompeted by systems that do not allow retardation of this level. We are the descendants of "soft" farmers instead of "hard" nomads because the farmers, who weren't Chad horse archers, still outcompeted them.
I would note here there are no libertarian societies, except maybe Somalia (which is a shit hole). Libertarian societies clearly cannot compete with societies that guardrail retarded behavior like "allowing children to starve to death".
The libertarians are able to pivot the anti-libertarian position to also then have to be anti-abortion, which is clever. Not trying to get sidetracked, but I think that's easily addressed by picking a dividing line in age in which a fetus picks up personal property rights/potential adulthood.
I'm actually not super offended if a mom didn't want to keep her rape baby. I wouldn't want the government to force that on her. I don't really think that any of the above people aside from parents should be obligated to take care of a kid, so libertarians and I agree here.
This is retarded and such a false equivalency, just pick a line in age in which parent doesn't have to maintain the child anymore.
This is stupid and unhelpful, we're not there yet, we can handle it when we are.
Just pick a line in the sand? That isn't impossible. Obviously in that example they aren't obligated to die to save the kid.
This is retarded. Obviously minimum care is what the parents "owe". If a kid has say diabetes, then insulin is included in "minimum care" , going immediately to "muh procustean, muh not everyone the same" is immediately answered by "the bare minimum to keep that specific human alive" which in 99% cases is a roughly identical level. This is trans-tier "because a fraction of 1% of people don't fall into the gender binary, we must make government IDs and medical records for everyone worse and less helpful".
No because the rescuer didn't conceive life to the child. Because the parent did conceive life to the child. This isn't complicated.
Just pick an age, in 99% of cases this works just fine. This is actually a solved problem.
Based.
I'm actually not entirely opposed to this, although at a certain age this will obviously psychologically damage the child, which society will have to pay for with increased criminality, etc. Again, societies with things like marriage, that force adults to shut the fuck up and stay in a family unit (which is demonstrably better for child outcomes) clearly outcompeted societies that didn't, so this would be a regression in civilizational quality.
I do actually agree however that adoption should be much easier, and priority should be made to rescue children from absolutely shit parents (like destitute drug addicts, I'm not opposed to sterilization of awful potential parents) so they can go to better homes.
I agree with basically all of it , but I think like with basically other libertarian "solution" , the proposed system is absolutely retarded, incredibly fragile, and would almost immediately disintegrate and be subsumed by neighboring countries with functional civilizations.
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