site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 10, 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.

14
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Maybe we should start with building more housing.

You can’t build enough housing when you import a million or so illegal immigrants every few years not counting foreign visa holders. Every country that has this “replacement” level immigration naturally runs out of housing

Why is every anti-immigration argument like this? Just put 'immigration' next to a superficially related BAD THING and declare immigration is THE cause of the bad thing. If a few million immigrants every few years overwhelms the natural supply of housing, how on earth did the world population 10x in a few hundred years without mass homelessness? Population growth in the US is slowing, not increasing, despite immigration. And the answer is just ... they built more houses and cities and towns, farmed more food and paved more roads. Which we, physically, and economically, could easily do.

This is complete nonsense. US population growth has been slowing for decades even with immigration, and the barriers to building more housing are all completely artificial.

You can’t build enough housing when you import a million or so illegal immigrants every few years not counting foreign visa holders. Every country that has this “replacement” level immigration naturally runs out of housing

The US is very empty and rarely builds up. It has depopulating towns and cities. There is nothing natural about its lack of housing.

The homeless problem in US cities is not a result of a lack of housing, and framing it that way is just an effort to push policies that have little to do with homelessness.

Maybe, but I wasn't talking about homelessness.

You can’t

That's quitter talk, you absolutely can build enough housing, it's just a question of if the will to do so exists and what we consider to be adequate housing.

Sure, we can build giant Krushchevskies but that just drives up the price of single family homes not located nearby while not actually addressing America's housing problems because American housing problems are mostly not due to shortage, they're due to non-optimal distribution.

The market has historically relied on supply and demand, not will. Are you saying you want the Gov to make commie blocks for everyone? Why not just stop the replacement migration?

The housing market is artificially constrained on the supply side. Reduce the power of local governments to block development and you’ll get more housing supply.

I'm not saying I want anything, I'm saying that it's not a question of "can't" but "won't".

There are a few different ways to approach the problem of "insufficient houses to meet demand", ranging from building commie blocks/pods all the way to just dropping regulations and allowing shanty towns to spring up.

I really hate when someone says they can't do something when they actually mean they won't do something.

I am pretty sure that @Mer simply wants to remove existing impediments to building housing. Then, the market will take care of the problem, as it has in places like Houston.

Or, of course, government can subsidize the building of housing, thereby shifting the supply curve. No "commie blocs" needed!