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 -
That's not true, in a one vote power per person system, rural voters are relevant too. They're just only as relevant as their actual population size.
Not true, but even if they do so what? More citizens live in the cities therefore doing pro city stuff means benefiting more citizens than pro rural stuff then.
And the rural country doesn't likewise depend on the cities? They benefit from all the wonderful intentions, financing, and other stuff that comes out of the cities. Farming and resources are valuable, but rural life has electricity, cars, far more stable crops from advances in science (bad harvests are so much less common), medical inventions, internet, smart phones, TV, cheap good looking clothes, and basically anything else that comes from urban workers.
Rural life benefits immensely from the economic and technological growth that the cities are responsible for.
Ah so giving them extra vote power is just a deal so they don't shoot up the democracy.
This is essentially the core thesis of the The Federalist Papers.
You believe in gaining the consent of the governed don't you?
More options
Context Copy link
Which is just another way of saying "they're irrelevant".
Trivially true; look at election maps of my [admittedly newly-added] example over the last 150 years and you'll see exactly what I mean. The cities always only ever vote for themselves with a brief exception perhaps once every 30 years.
This doesn't actually preclude them from doing their city thing in that city. In fact, a significant chunk of power comes from the city people being able to do this- which is balanced against the below.
The country needs the city far less than the city needs the country. This is a significant strategic liability for the city, actually- the city needs water and food and raw materials (to convert into finished goods) far beyond subsistence levels by its nature of being a city. Thus the power the city derives from centralization is dependent on the rest of the country, not the other way around.
This is much like how a man's job is to bring home the food and the woman's job is to cook it.
If the woman doesn't do her job, they're unhappy. If the man doesn't do his, they're dead.
So it is for city and country, and why the country outranks the city.
Yes.
No, they'd just as relevant as any other individual voter.
Even in the most one sided cities, they still tend to be around 70/30 Dem vs GOP. Which is what I assume you actually mean rather than "vote for themselves".
Actually it can, look at North Carolina! The state legislature is extremely gerrymandered into a basically permanent veto proof GOP majority despite being a swing state that routinely votes Dem leaders and they constantly use this to try to limit and control Charlotte and Raleigh's ability to self govern. Like that famous "bathroom bill" a decade ago came out explicitly in response to Charlotte passing an inclusive ordinance within city borders. This is not uncommon.
Cities are in fact often precluded from doing what they want because of gerrymandering.
Yes those are quite important, but cities are needed too. Try defending the country without the technology and logistics that urban wealth helps create and provide. Much of those are raw materials and natural resources are practically useless without the urbanites inventing things to do with them.
If the woman doesn't do her job in this scenario, they get sick and die from eating raw meat. Just like how the rurals would be squashed by our enemies without the wealth and intelligence of the city.
But it's also an ahistorical example, women did tons of work in the past. Most people were far too poor to be letting someone get away with not being productive! When famines are frequent and the Lord demands his pay, you don't get to sit on your ass. Even the young children had to go out and till the fields.
Only the nobles and chieftains could have such a fancy life of not needing everyone working hard. Women milked cattle, tilled fields, managed crops, kept chickens, cleaned (also known as sanitizing things), make clothing (especially necessary at the time where minor scratches and infections could kill and no A/C or heating), hauled water, picked fruits and vegetables and various other tasks.
So what you're saying is that the cities should just start threatening their supreme economic and technological superiority back. Sure cities might be without food for a short bit before they move to conquer the fields, but the rurals will be without life after a few AI guided drone strikes and missiles.
So, The Hunger Games?
A proportionate response to an explicit threat of "We will destroy democracy if we can't rig it" is not what happened in the hunger games. The hunger games government was a dictatorship police state, kinda like the Russia and North Korea that Trump so admires.
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