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 -
An article is making the rounds on rat-adjacent twitter entitled "The Nerdy Escorts Cashing In On Silicon Valley’s AI Boom."
I can't bypass the paywall, but someone posted on X:
I know that aella, the famous rationalist whorelord, popularized this niche of pseudo-intellectual prostitutes appealing to rationalists and other tech nerds for extreme amounts of money. It's obvious that aella has become obscenely wealthy and gained a ton of social status from her pursuits, but I'm still somewhat shocked at the sheer amount these women are making.
I work a pretty boring, standard corporate marketing job, and apparently these prostitutes are taking home almost my entire after-tax yearly income in one weekend.
Even regardless of the moral aspect of the situation, the fact that a prostitute can make so much money is a huge slap in the face to people working hard for a living. That, combined with the fact that close to 18% of the economy is now in healthcare, has got me a bit depressed on the economy.
Also, Tyler Cowen had a bit of a viral moment yesterday saying he wouldn't be surprised if 15 to 20% of all jobs in the near future are elder care. This of course sandwiched in a talk where he insists AI is great and making jobs not losing them!
Anyway, all of this recent discourse combined is making me feel more and more like a retarded schmuck for working a 'real job,' as opposed to just leeching off the government, doing some sort of NGO/media grift, or even just getting a random remote job and going to live cheap in Thailand or some other extremely cheap country. And this is someone who has a pretty chill office job where I don't have to work too hard, and get to work from home a few days a week. I can't imagine how people who actually bust their asses in physical labor and make less than me feel!
Either way, the optimism from the pundit class around AI and the economy is feeling more and more hollow to me by the day. If the numbers keep going up but everyone is employed wiping the asses of boomers and sexually pleasuring tech AI millionaires, have we really improved society? How will things go otherwise without some sort of relatively radical disruption? I try not to be a 'doomer' about AI, but I'm increasingly finding it hard to be optimistic on the impact of it on society.
I work in elder care myself - can you expand on why you feel negatively about it? I tend to agree that it would be bad for a huge proportion of the population to be involved in it, and that mostly relates to concerns about the birth rate and demographics, but insofar as the elderly population is growing, needing more people to look after them seems inevitable. Lifespans are increasing and medical care is improving, so the number of elderly people is also going to increase.
Unless one wants to bite the bullet and say that increased life expectancies are bad, and it would be better if more people died at 70, there are going to be more elderly people, and through no moral failing of anybody, they will need care. What is your preferred response?
Have more controls on provision of medical care to the elderly when it's not passing any cost/benefit calculation especially on public purse. Bump the retirement age substantially upwards for public assistance since an increasingly vanishing minority are working jobs with any real physical toll.
If you want to self-fund your tilting with death sure but incentives are currently massively misaligned
It's really great you're going to be thirty years old forever and maximally economically productive and will never get old or sick and will never be replaced in your job, so you are never going to need home helps, healthcare services, or a pension. Unlike those old useless seventy years onwards people selfishly requiring doctors to treat their arthritis and pneumonia, the leeches!
Publicly funded retirement is a privilege. The line needs to be kept at a point that enables society's books to be balanced. 65 made sense when a comparatively small fraction made it there and massively costly medical interventions weren't a thing.
If you want to stop working either have enough kids or get enough money that you're not on the public purse.
This is called "altering the deal". Anyway, aren't you one of those who swears that old people's saved money is no good and they should actually have to personally provide for themselves in their dotage, or have their kids do so?
"We made a deal, but you never signed it or voted for it because it was before you were born, but don't worry about how much it's costing you because you'll get paid back by other people who still haven't been born, except of course that the demographic pyramid is now much taller and upside down and our accountants say there's no way you can't get mostly stiffed. Are you really saying you want to alter that deal?"
I believe the appropriate counter-meme here is the "Yes Chad".
I'm probably near enough to the peak "going to get screwed when the younger people wise up" age that I certainly can't be happy about the situation, but it is what it is.
I'm a bit of an AI doomer, but if we're going to insist that someone to do all our work and pay for our leisure without deciding to just let us all die instead, I think creating AGI to ask might still give us better odds than asking the ever-shrinking younger generations of First World countries. And just in case that Fully Automated Luxury Geriatric Space Welfare-Capitalism plan remains mere fantasy for too long, in the meantime it might be a wise idea to back off on the massive debt-funded entitlements gradually, before we add too much more risk that our creditors will decide to back off suddenly. In the worst case, there might be so much of a backlash that the "saved money is no good" contingent actually gets into power. It's dismaying how many young Americans hold favorable views of socialism, but if they perceive the status quo as "socialism, just not for you" then I can see how they might imagine they'd be upgrading.
The people who want to cut off Social Security for "boomers" (really Xers) and who want to take the houses of old people because they aren't using them appropriately are pretty much the same. The group which thinks old people's money is no good and if you aren't working now, you shouldn't be able to pay for things is a subset of them. You can't appease them (or anyone, really); victory anywhere would only embolden them. Otherwise I'd be more open to cutting off SS.
The Xers are already showing serious creaks in the structure. Anybody looking at an age distribution chart has to be very alarmed.
If an old person is totally self-funding their retirement and has an expensive house I have no malice to them. I do suspect they might be happier moving into a purpose-built assisted living community someplace with cheaper land values, but that's their choice. The issue becomes when massive subsidies, far exceeding the individual's lifetime contribution are piled on somebody who is also holding a very valuable asset which is increasingly happening.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link