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 -
Who did you think the welfare state was for? Yes, you have to pay into the system, but you have freedom not afforded to the young and physical and mental ability not afforded to the old. That's the social contract. The theoretical benefit of immigration is that you bring in people who haven't spent 18 years consuming resources and are putting money into the system immediately; of course it doesn't always work out that way.
And people here absolutely complain about the spiraling healthcare spending growth (though in the past few decades the US has grown more slowly than comparable countries). It's pretty clear that medicare/SSI are going to fuck the budget soon, and it's politically impossible to seriously cut them.
I don't recall signing a contract. More like the social imposition? I would only agree to a contract that gives me what I deserve.
Obviously it's impractical to get voluntary agreement from everyone. The idea is set up a system with a kind of rough proportionality of advantage (ex ante) and then impose it on everyone willy-nilly. But even so, the system should be fair, sustainable, and pro-social. Based on these criteria, I would say there is a lot of room for improvement in the current system.
Yes, well, too bad, because it's not a valid contract without this element.
With respect to whom? It is none of these to Nick 30 ans, but it may feel that way to Pierre 68 ans.
In the strict, legal sense, I would agree. But when people say "social contract" that's not what is meant.
For every category of person.
If that's correct, then that's a big problem. If the social contract is abusing (ex ante) a category of persons, then it's arguably illegitimate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The social contract is whatever society's representative (the state) says it is, and nothing more or less.
More options
Context Copy link
The freedom is not something given, but taken away.
I am aware of the concept of a social contract. But the contract here is drafted almost solely by those benefitting at this point - that's not a contract, that's coercive extraction of resources from those with power from those with none, with most people being unaware where the money is flowing and who is paying for whom.
The social contract being boomer UBI is also something somewhat unprecedented in a democracy. Maybe not in history.
Exactly. Plus the current boundaries of the amount of Boomer UBI, the age it's received and what it can be spent on (Endless arm-wrestling with the grim reaper to claw a month at a time is just not useful for anybody) can all be shifted without killing 'the social contract'. Most people are effectively not covering their own costs, retirement is a privilege.
You can also, much more easily, just end the cap on social security contributions. Sure, the high income won't like it, but an almost literal 'raise taxes on the rich and only the rich' policy would be popular enough that they realize it's not going away.
"Just" raise the top tax bracket to 50%.
Much easier than getting your government hands on the boomers' medicare.
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