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 -
Except for not retiring, these all seem true both now and when you (and I) were young, but not true 100 years ago. I'd argue that the alienation of youth could easily be responding to a real change.
The alienation has persisted for over a half century, because the complaints have been true over that period.
Exactly. Most Elderly welfare programs were designed under fundamentally different conditions. 65 as a retirement age made more sense when a considerably-smaller chunk of the population made it there with way less years in the tank after working a lot more physically arduous jobs and their end of life care options were a lot less numerous and expensive. By the time that today's youth get to that age the programs will likely be drastically reshaped and cut to accommodate for this new reality and/or luxury robot communism for all since human labor is no longer useful. Since the elderly have enormous voting clout in democracies there's also no particularly good way around this, and any changes will likely involve large degrees of grandfathering.
More options
Context Copy link
What's your basis for believing this? In 1926, roughly a third of Americans worked in agriculture. I can easily imagine young people complaining at that time that old people owned and controlled all the best land in the United States.
Of course, I don't know one way or another. But I do know that in a free market economy, there are always capital goods and other resources in short supply. And that, logically, older people frequently have had a better chance than young people to acquire and accumulate those resources.
In 1926 the median American was around 26 years old. Thanks to the baby boom, the median wasn't much older in 1970, 28, and was 30 in 1980. Today, it's 39, and will likely be over 40 by 2030. The old have never been so proportionately numerous.
This is aggravated by the fact that economic growth has been declining since the 1980s, and especially since the end of the 90s. Barring 2021, all but the oldest Millennials ever experienced 4% GDP growth as a member of the labor force. All but the youngest of Gen Z have never experienced 3% GDP growth in the workforce, again barring 2021.
More options
Context Copy link
Elderly didn't have the benefit of the modern medical infrastructure where you have a great chance of toddling around in pretty solid health at 70 compared to where you were. Look at the recent presidential stock.
Inheritances are coming later and increasingly past the ages that facilitate real meaningful innovation from the recipients. The laptop jobification of the economy means there's way more scope to just hold on to roles into dotage years.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link