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 -
Trumps proposing to pay families with SAHP $9,000.
Am I the only one who thinks the proposal is excellent, and that it is an inherent good to support families (even if its limited to more traditional ones)? Its probably better for us to support some families than not? The payment is certainly not ideal, perhaps an argument could be made for support working parents as well. But I think this is at least on the right track. We hear people complain about the cost of raising children all the time, (though I suspect this isnt a genuine complaint for most - many who are saying this probably wouldn't have children even if the cost were $0) but I think this may encourage the few who do actually think like this to go through and continue with more.
My only other complaint here is if Trump and JD Vance are primarily concerned with boosting the overall birth rate alongside helping working families, targeting male income and raising it should be paramount.
It is obviously a very good idea. Traditionalism is more importan than liberalism, and conservatism that conserves liberalism rather than traditionalism is not my ally. Traditionalism is also Christian Western American tradition, attempts to support other forms of traditon are not conservatism and not my ally.
There is a broken pattern now, that anyone with eyes is able to recognize: Welfare is incentivization.
Subsidy spending is bad! Ok but what about the needy? Well of course, we'll subsidize the needy.
All well and good, unless being needy is at all downstream from individual choices.
The libertarian response: Just remove all the welfare is absolutely nothing but controlled opposition. It's pie in the sky nonsense. Libertarian boomers are free to distribute their Medicare and Social security check to the taxpaying base or better yet their married children who can't afford to start a family, while they go on cruises. I won't hold my breath.
Just cut spending mean: Don't spend on the base! Spend on the liberals. Establishment conservatism hates its base.
But that's not the only issue with the 'just cut the spending' crowd. It's also wrongly ordered. I've typed at length about "Liberalism of the Gaps" and my interest in post-detraditionalisation, and this is as good an example as any.
I don't think atomizing society is good, I don't think atomic liberalism is good, While I agree in the abstract in reducing spending, I'm not motivated by many of the same reasons as Con-Inc is here. Supporting traditional institutions like marriage and stay at home mothers is among the highest goods. When we've returned to a healthy social order, then I'll entertain discussions about why spending thats already being spend shouldn't be spent on good things instead of bad things.
I live near Section 8 housing and from what I can tell all the mothers are already stay-at-home. Stay-in-the-front-yard, even, when the weather is nice.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link