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 -
A stray comment on the culture-war thread from two weeks ago reminds me that, IMO, people on this website have been talking very loosely when they compare "urban", "suburban", and "rural" living.
The definitions endorsed by the United Nations are roughly as follows.
Urban: ≥ 1500 people per km2 (6.1 people per acre)
Suburban: ≥ 300 people per km2 (1.2 people per acre)
Rural: < 300 people per km2 (1.2 people per acre)
However, six people per acre actually isn't that dense. The US's IZC (International Zoning Code) is not necessarily authoritative, but in its single-family and two-family residential zones it permits density of up to six dwelling units per acre, implying 15 people per acre at 2.5 people per household.⁎
Likewise, a representative comment describes suburbs as follows:
Yet, if you look at a random US "city" in Google Maps, you will see lots of single-family houses with their own backyards and limited access to mass transit.
So, what do you actually mean when you say "urban", "suburban", and "rural" living? Maybe it's something like this.
Urban living: Row houses and apartment buildings, with incidental retail
Suburban living: Single-family and two-family houses, and nothing else
Rural living: Incidental single-family houses in land that is largely agricultural or undeveloped
⁎With tongue significantly less than halfway in cheek, I previously suggested that the threshold for a fourth "mega-city" category in the UN's framework might be set at 7500 people per km2 (30 people per acre). This matches the IZC's upper bound for multifamily residential zones (12 dwelling units per acre), past which commercial/residential zones with unlimited dwelling-unit density must be used instead.
Funny, I personallyhave a closer definition to this, than any actual density measures, but I realize that I also incorporate an element of culture into it as well.
I can explain thusly:
Urban: People get around by foot or bike or public transport.
Suburban: Mostly cars, interspersed with bikes.
Rural: Trucks, horses, or occasional farm equipment.
Likewise, 'how far' do you have to travel to get to the nearest live theater? If you live in an area that is technically sparsely populated but you can drive <20 minutes and see a live production, that's gotta be suburban. If you can walk to see one, OBVIOUSLY Urban.
All of these are correlates with density, so it really just helps sort out the gray areas of the spectrum, I guess. I know of areas that are sparsely populated but wealthy with plenty of amenities in driving range so they're 'suburban' for most pursuits and purposes, even if the locals keep and ride horses. The workers may come in from the nearest metro area, which adds to that point.
Likewise, areas composed of single family homes lined up for miles, which is the stereotypical suburb, but low income and you DO occasionally people keeping farm animals, and its an hour to the nearest theater are 'rural-coded' in my mind, even if there's technically no agriculture going on.
If you put a large apartment block in the middle of nowhere, that might have decently high density but no way is it 'urban', too.
Finally, you can get weird situations where high tourist areas are 'urban' in that there's a ton of people that come around seasonally but it quiets down so much outside of that you might as well be living rurally.
This metric really only works in large cities. In small or medium-sized cities (say anything under approx. 500,000), it’s possible to have literal Amish farms less than a 20
mileminute drive from a live theater.I said 20 minutes, not 20 miles for a reason though.
20 miles CAN be a 30-45 minute drive depending on the type of roads you got out there.
If you can drive 20 miles in 20 minutes reliably (i.e. average speed of 60 mph) that strongly implies enough development to be suburban. In urban areas... the traffic is the factor that makes that almost impossible.
One feature of rural living (that can be shared with decaying urban areas) is roads in generally bad condition forcing you to drive more carefully and slowly.
Sorry, that was a typo on my part. I meant 20 minutes. In the city closest to where I live, there are Amish farms less than a 20 minute drive to a live theater.
Then you have found some suburban Amish.
Although I'd go ahead and say that "neigbhors with Amish farmers" is a ruraldom indicator.
More options
Context Copy link
Lancaster, Pennsylvania has several live theaters within 5-10 minutes of the nearest farm. I don't know if they're Amish but given it's Lancaster that's the way to bet.
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