site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 27, 2023

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.

11
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There are certainly red flags indicating that he is not a particularly rigorous thinker. Eg:

Landlords in poorer areas earn “basically double” those in more affluent districts . . . There are caveats: the relationship is not true in a few top cities, such as New York ...

If you are worried about housing affordability, the opposite of NYC is presumptively a good thing. And if landlords can make more money renting to poor people, that is good, because it encourages building more housing in poor areas, or building a building with many small apartments, rather than a handful of giant apartments, as often happens in Manhatten.

He lived on a mobile home park in Milwaukee — about 130 trailers in “a really poor place in a really poor city”. Desmond calculated that the owner earned about $447,000 a year after expenses. “That blew me away. His tenants are getting by on $600-$700 a month.”

Assuming his numbers are correct, it actually a good thing that people with income of $700 per month can afford housing, and it is a good thing that someone can earn a living providing it to them.

And it turned out that the mum had just died, and after the funeral the kids just went on living in the house. Mattresses on the floor, eating what they could. They just evicted the kids. Put the kids out, called social services, put their stuff on the curb, changed the locks, moved to the next house. That’s a level of deprivation that I never experienced — a level of cruelty.”

It is cruel to refer orphans who are "eating what they could" to social services?

The poor might have cheap consumer goods, but rents are more expensive and prison more pervasive. In the US of the 1930s and 1940s, “eviction was often a very rare, ...

If you are even hinting that the poor were better-off in the 1930s, ie, the Great Depression, something has gone wrong.