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 -
The main reasoning I see here is food deserts but the large majority of food deserts are functionally a myth due to outdated standards around transportation. They do exist in some places still (there's a mountain I hike at where the closest food besides dollar general is like 45 minutes away) but the majority of them are just because people drive now. I live in an area very close to being a suburban "food desert" and no one would ever know it because everyone has cars.
NYC might be an exception since car ownership is rarer there, but it makes up for it with better public transit so presumably there's still not much trouble with actually accessing food if you take a short bus ride or the subway or whatever.
But ok there might be a few people who truly are in need and if we want to subsidize them, fine. We do that with the mail, we deliver even to super rural locations that are obviously not worth the price. Charity doesn't have to be profitable. But charity should get results and these grocery stores are going to be a mess, they're not targeted to those rare people actually in need. Delivering mail to rurals at a loss actually gets mail to rurals, will these grocery stores actually provide food to those who would have to travel long distances otherwise or will they just be at a loss for nothing? And if they're not guaranteed to be at a loss that that's an issue because that means the market could have solved the problem to begin with and was just handicapped by government.
I mean, isn't that the point? That we want to end food deserts so that fewer people need cars. Not especially relevant to the NYC case, of course.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link