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 -
Hey, at least you're at work, I'm on the first vacation I've had in like 7 years and still motteposting and doomscrolling 🙏
Now, I'm a fan of Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism (the homosexuality is optional), so I'm all aboard the UBI train when it's time to leave the station (not today, the economy can't take it).
I think you're grossly correct in your assessment, Conservatives often decry Leftist ideology as utopian, which is a perfectly valid argument right until a potential utopia is on the horizon and we're asked to interview potential Peters to guard the Pearly Gates, some of them stricter bouncers than others.
The way I see it, without UBI of some degree, the default outcome for the vast majority of people who don't hold decent stakes in the corporations getting ultra wealthy off automation is starvation.
This UBI can come in the form of something that calls itself UBI, a bastardized form of existing welfare systems, or just outright philanthropy by trillionaires who aren't quite content to watch a good chunk of the populace starve before their eyes. But at the end of the day, some form of handouts are necessary, which leaves all but the most devoted Randians dejectedly standing in the bread lines when their turn comes.
However, if I had to add one consideration, it's the issue of exit rights.
The way I see it, any entity holding an initial stake in automation will become wildly wealthy in real terms. All it takes is a few such entities to be more altruistic than the rest for them to comfortably support the rejects and exiles that stricter and more moralizing polities won't tolerate.
A concrete example in today's world would be that SF and NY, flush with more money than most of the world can dream of, tolerated a great deal of drag from coddling the unwanted of the greater nation. It's a real shame that the homeless want to spoil the good thing they've got going, if they were just kind enough not to bite or shit on the hand that feeds them, they could count on bleeding hearts to keep them fed and watered indefinitely.
As such, I suspect that there will exist enough of such polities that people who aren't content with whatever UBI or handout they receive in their place of origin will simply drift over, and with resource scarcity being largely a non-issue, a tolerant government or society can then absorb a near indefinite amount of them.
That's all I'm willing to conjecture, the exact shape of the future is contingent on tiny perturbations none of us can do more than idly speculate about, and for once, I'm too busy buckling my seat belts worry overmuch about where exactly we're going. At any rate, all of us are in for one helluva ride!
Do you think this jives with the 'quote' that has been bandied about lately: "We have no moat; no one does"? Whose stake in automation is able to be protected? Like, say, if suddenly autonomous robot lawnmowers turn the corner and become good enough to be generally "good", that doesn't seem to so much accrue to the general group of people who have a stake in "automation". Instead, it probably accrues to people who are already making lawnmowers. Maybe to people who have lawn care businesses also, as folks might find it more affordable to pay a small fee for their company's autonomous lawnmower (which can be run nearly nonstop, not sitting in the garage useless for 99% of the time)? It seems more like automation is just a general upskilling across a variety of industries, like advances in math or engineering principles or corporate finance would be.
By "stake in automation", I mean anyone holding a sufficiently large stake in any company making massive profits through automation such that they can either live off dividends or slowly selling their stock at the safe withdrawal rate indefinitely.
The issues with the moat, or lack thereof, is only a concern for companies trying to become super-duper-mega rich instead of just stupid rich. From a personal perspective, all that means is that you don't have to lose too much sweat over whether it's your investments in Google or Microsoft or Nvidia that'll pan out.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link