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 concept of '15-minute cities' came up a few weeks ago, but since then it appears to have piggybacked off a local dispute in Oxford to become the locus of the latest so-called 'far-right conspiracy theory'. The proposed measure certainly codes as dystopian to me on this side of the pond, even as someone who is generally supportive of new urbanist ideas, but I can't speak to how it plays in Europe.
I've often felt that the culture war battle lines on these urban planning issues have not been as clearly drawn as those on gender, immigration, or abortion, mostly due to a lack of attention, but that time appears to be coming to an end. Though seeing as we already can't build anything, I suppose it isn't much of a loss.
Sooner or later, the right will (hopefully) come to understand a few hard-hitting things:
NIMBY:ism is not only good but morally necessary to create and sustain worthwhile communities. Not just their character but also their architectural beauty and natural endowments (e.g. parks, tree-lined pathways).
Regulation is an unavoidable fact in order to bring all of this about. The neoliberal rage against regulation will only lead to poorly built cardboard boxes mashed together into historic neighbourhoods, crammed with people of dubious moral character (as this would be "affordable housing" that YIMBYists love to praise).
Getting rid of most cars in inner cities would also be a good start and many European cities are moving in this direction. Some faster (Oslo) and some slower (Paris) but it's slowly coming together.
That all said, if someone truly thinks that car-centric sprawl suburbia is the peak of human existence, then all the more power to you. I just don't think many on the right are actually on board with that once they take time to think. The issue is that many have neoliberal priors that prevents them from going to the logical conclusion. Housing policy is difficult because there isn't a clear-cut left vs right divide and most folks prefer to stay in tribes where thinking independently is discouraged and you can just follow the herd.
Here, as with all regulation, the problem is with execution instead of intention. You can pass the most wonderful laws in the world, but if the people doing the enforcing of the laws lack the capacity, will, or desire to actually put those laws into effect, then you have a serious problem.
For example, take laws against driving a private passenger vehicle in a city center. The law will obviously be enforced on John and Jane Smith, pro-social middle class types. Enforcing the law on the Smiths is easy because:
(1) there are few violations in the first place (the Smiths may grumble that it's suddenly really inconvenient to nip out for a quick date night downtown and get back before racking up a huge babysitter bill, but they will probably obey the law in the first place),
(2) investigation of violations are easy (the Smiths' are always current on their car registration, are invested in a nice home in the inner-ring suburbs, don't obscure their licenseplates, and don't run from the cops if pulled over), and
(3) compliance with imposed penalties is both high and exercises a deterrent effect (the Smiths will likely pay any ticket they get because losing their license or having a bench warrant issued would be devastating to their professional careers and ability to maintain their expected quality of life for themselves and their family. They will also likely view getting ticketed in this way as a mark of shame or at least bad behavior, and so will be vigilant to not violate again.)
But the law doesn't need to deal with just the Smiths. It also needs to deal with the "street takeovers" and community push-back about the ban restricting culturally-specific "cruising" which involve potentially-controversial enforcement efforts on people who it is (a) difficult to catch in the act, (b) difficult to investigate (because poor or itinerant), and (c) difficult to deter or punish short of imprisonment (which may result in worse outcomes through exposure to prison gangs, etc.)
If the law does not deal with those things, you have textbook anarcho-tyranny; a restriction on the privileges of the law-abiding, but little or no effective effort to restrain lawless elements from engaging in significant nuisance activity which further diminishes the law-abiding's quality of life.
And this is all without going into the question of whether the law correctly judges the benefits and costs of the proposed policy; whether the future development of the community will proceed in the manner assumed by policymakers; whether public transit is in a good-enough condition to accommodate the increased demands on ridership; whether the physical geography is suitable for walk/biking with groceries/purchases, etc.
More options
Context Copy link
And how many of you tried taking home a new wardrobe on the bus? But that's different, delivery vans are necessary, so you can walk/bike your 15 minutes and the rest of the things you want for a decent standard of living will be produced, stored, and delivered to you by someone else's vehicles.
The idea of "I only need to bring what I can carry in a backpack or my two hands as I walk round the city centre where everything I want is conveniently located" is a nice one, but only works in certain instances. Six million people can't all live in the city centre 15 minutes from where they work, shop, and entertain themselves, that's why cities spread out. Somebody will be on the outer fringe, a lot more than 15 minutes from the fun, happening, hip cultural centre. That's even before getting out to suburbs.
I mean, East Asian megalopolises somehow make do, even if they sprawl so much that not literally everywhere is 15 minutes from work and entertainment. Someone in Shinagawa district would be close to Oosaki, Meguro and Gotanda, even if traveling to e.g. Ginza would take a while more; and even living in the commuter cities nearby like Yokohama you get a density of things that isn’t really quite replicated in the anglosphere, especially in the US. Hong Kong has essentially all of the population within a 15 minute’s walk to the closest schools, shops, workplaces, etc., though admittedly that is an extreme and wouldn’t work for people who don’t like apartments. It’s not a matter of “can’t”, I think.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think one has to think car-centric sprawl is the peak of human existence to think it's a pleasant way to live that many people enjoy. People vote with their feet and their wallets and the outlying, sprawlier communities with more square feet and bigger lots do very well and if that means a half hour commute instead of biking 5 minutes to work, young families seem fine with that. I love my little suburb. I have generally everything I need within a 10 minute drive. I have a cute house in a quiet cul-de-sac that backs up to a wooded area. I have just down the street access to 20 mile trail along a beautiful stream. I have just down another street access to 10 acre dog park.
I can perfectly well understand that people can value different things and for some people access to walkable downtown neighborhoods with night life may be appealing. I'll take the weekly trip to the grocery store, the station wagon with heated seats, and the view of the woods from my back porch.
More options
Context Copy link
If the regulation was always done by a crusty Oxbridge-educated High Anglican Tory with the politics of the 1950s and the aesthetic tastes of the 1590s (or the equivalent e.g. a sombre unimaginative Norweigian) I would probably favour regulation every time. However, there is no way to guarantee that, and the problems are complex, e.g. avoiding high density development (the classic NIMBY position) comes into conflict with not wanting car-entric sprawl suburbia.
The steelman neoliberal position is normally not that a spontaneous order is optimal, but that it is less likely to produce very suboptimal outcomes than more regulated approaches. Sometimes that is right and sometimes it is wrong, but a neoliberal is not committed to the idea that car-centric sprawl suburbia is optimal - not least because many of them want high density concentrated cities.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link