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 -
One reason that matters, though, is because opportunity clusters. If you can't afford a brownstone in Park Slope (wherever that is), that's a problem because you then can't access the high-paying job/networking/cultural opportunities in Park Slope. There is a plausible downward spiral of
couldn't quite afford Park Slope -> moved to the boonies -> could only find low-paying local jobs -> could never even think of moving to Park Slope -> can't even afford the boonies any more
which doesn't quite hold in a utopian society.
Park Slope is a nice neighborhood in Brooklyn. A brownstone in Park Slope is roughly a Victorian in Noe Valley.
In the utopia, how does someone not in Park Slope get their brownstone in Park Slope?
I think the idea is that while some people value a brownstone in Park Slope for its own sake, some value it because it puts them near the job opportunities of NYC and otherwise wouldn't want one.
If the job opportunities of NYC don't matter anymore, that second group no longer wants to be in Park Slope, so while there probably still won't be enough brownstones to go around, there may be less of a gap than there currently is.
We're also seeing some significant declines in fertility rates, and I think more so in the demographics that want to be in Park Slope. So if that trend continues in utopia (which seems reasonable, material abundance if anything seems to get people less interested in children if we look at the modern era), over time there will be fewer people looking for them and the gap might shrink further.
If we get infinite life extension that might be a different matter, but I expect eternal youth will also lead to "eh, I'll get around to making kids later" for some very long definitions of later, and the city-seeking crowd also seems to have a problem with depression that might lead to disinterest in infinite lifespans.
Thanks @wraelk!
@ThenElection, this is what I was trying to say, but much better put. Currently, the area you live in affects the trajectory of your life: moving to... Idaho? (forgive the Brit please) doesn't just mean you have shelter in a less prestigious place, it means that your income and future life opportunities are going to shrink.
That means that the number of people who want a brownstone in Park Slope is currently
whereas in utopia it's just
Idaho is actually very expensive, like many western rural states.
'Move to Ohio' is a reasonable answer to those who can't afford New York, though- the purchasing power will actually be higher, even given lower average salaries.
More options
Context Copy link
That works for what you're trying to say, Idaho is a super empty and rural place. 44th in population density.
This was something I was really hoping would happen with all the remote work from COVID, businesses would realize they could have employees from all over the states and people could move wherever made the most sense for them independent of their job, reducing a lot of the housing pressure in major cities and letting smaller towns build up more. Unfortunately, while there are still more remote jobs than there used to be, a lot of that dried up.
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