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 -
This is why I'm against it.
If I could, I would prevent everyone under that $25K threshold from voting at all. These people are basically wards of the state, their opinions are not relevant or useful. The only reason that allowing them to vote makes any sense to me at all is that it may promote stability by giving the poor a sense that they are politically represented. The last thing I want to do is reward them with additional votes because they had children that they can't pay for.
Regarding speculation that this scheme may raise fertility rates, I would regard that as unproven, to put it mildly. I would prefer some country that isn't my own try it out so there's at least some experimental result to go on. In practice, I would expect the actual outcome to just increase the rate of dysgenic policies.
What are your views on requiring people who make under 25K and whose opinions are not relevant or useful, to have to obey laws?
To riff on Ghandi, I think that would be a good idea.
LMAO, that's an excellent comeback.
It's not as good a comeback as you think. Even though the underclass has a higher rate of lawbreaking, that doesn't mean that so many of them are lawbreaking that there are none left who aren't. Why don't you want that portion of them to have a say in the laws that they have to obey?
The Right is allowed to say cities are hell hole slums, that they hate NY city values, and that people making less than 25k are lawless leeches who should be disenfranchised because they're the party of the real working class fighting back against elites who disparage deplorables.
If I assumed they said that, I would be putting words into people's mouths.
Walterodim said he wanted to strip the vote of people making less than 25k because they're basically wards of that state. Romney said 47% of the country is dependent on the government. Ted Cruz famously disparaged New York City values in the 2016 primary. Marjorie Taylor Greene called New York filthy and disgusting.
I suppose I'm conflating all these politicians (and one random commenter) with "the right", but it is an interesting phenomenon that open disparagement of cities and low income people is acceptable on the right at the same time they claim to be anti-elite populist crusaders.
Despite the contempt I've developed for the US Democratic Party, I don't consider myself part of the right and more specifically don't consider myself Republican at all.
I live in a city and like cities in general.
New York City is filthy and disgusting, but also has many upsides. I'll be excited for my next visit.
People with children that earn less than $25K are heavily reliant on governments for food, shelter and other basic necessities (particularly in cities), making them fairly close to wards of the state. Many of them earn effectively nothing and rely entirely on the government to pay for their families.
I am not an anti-elite populist.
I'm happy to provide further clarification on positions if you'd like.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link