site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   30977 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 15, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So ive been trying to get involved in the local political seen. I live in jacksonville, Fl. I decided to vote straight D in hopes to get control over the housing crisis. Donna Deagan won against our republican Daniel Davis. Which is a happy victory that im thankful for. Many people dont live here in jax, but the top 3 issues for my city personally were housing, our shit-excuse for a downtown, and public transportation, all of which are currently abysmal. From what can tell, Deagan is mentioned zoning reform on her website (the only known way to decrease housing cost, losing the zoning laws to build more). She also mentioned making things more walkable, which im also in favor of. Along with bringing more small businesses to jax (if you dont live here, its kinda boring, its football, beer, shopping malls. Thats it. The most exciting place is the beaches)

Ive kinda been questioning how much this will mean. A lot of other cities have blue politics, and are still notorious for having the above problems, (well minus shitty down towns). But im still giving it a try. What i find frustrating however is how little people actually care for local politics, and how people blame things on the president or governor, without understanding anything. Housing is a good example, ive had a lot of passengers in my car (i drive for uber) blame his for the price of it, without actually understanding that the reason for housing cost is down to city politics, and not the state. (Same thing with people blaming the president for gas prices). Ive always felt as though a lot of political problems in the US would be solved if people engaged on the local level of politics more.

I'm not familiar with local politics in Jacksonville past hearing from multiple people that the Florida State Democratic Party is incompetent, if not actively working against their stated ideals, including actively pushing away people wanting to help. Maybe the local party in Jacksonville is better or you can find some local politician you can connect with, but the other approach might be looking into local citizen lobbying groups that care about the issues you care about like a local branch of Strong Towns, a local transit organization, or something else. One way to find such organizations is looking for lists of endorsements of candidates with views you agree with, but other than that I don't have any ideas.

I don't think "blue politics" is a meaningful term if you're talking about policy on housing and public transportation. Most large cities in the US are dominated by the Democratic Party and there are major intra-party arguments over the appropriate policies, and to some extent they are issues that cross party lines (e.g. YIMBY free market arguments may appeal to some Republicans). Looking at Donna Deagan's campaign website, "zoning" is mentioned quietly in one section and transit isn't mentioned at all. My interpretation is that she's unlikely to make big changes on either, but maybe I'm missing some local details.

A few states have been making zoning law changes at the state level recently because the local levels haven't been willing to do anything. But some of that is that no one municipality wants to make a change while their neighbors don't, so zoning at the state level fixes some coordination problems. Jacksonville's weirdly large size (compared to other urban areas where the metro area is legally organized into many more municipalities) might make it easier for zoning changes to happen at the municipality level.

I can understand how someone living in Jacksonville might yearn for the more vibrant, walkable cities of the Blue states. But you might want to examine how these cities became what they are in the first place. Was it through the policies of the current Democratic party? No. It was generally due to these cities being settled before cars were in widespread use.

On the other hand, for those of us (probably the majority here) who do live in urban areas in blue states, we can see the real effects that the current Democratic party has had on our cities in the last 10 years. These include higher violent crime, much higher rates of homelessness and overdoses, higher taxation, and failing public schools. For example, King County (Seattle) has seen more overdoses in 2023 already than in all of 2020, which was already something like 1000% above rates from the 1990s. Furthermore, our transit systems have become unsafe to use and the cost of living is insane.

Are there any cities like Jacksonville which have actually achieved what you are looking for? Who did they vote for during that transition period? How do those policies look compared to the current Democratic and Republican parties.

You shouldn't vote based on "these people are saying some nice things, let's give that a try". You don't build walkable neighborhoods and lower housing costs out of thin air. And I've seen the slippery slope that leads from nice-sounding statements to women being pushed in front of a subway train by a drug-addicted lunatic.

No. It was generally due to these cities being settled before cars were in widespread use.

I don't think this is a good explanation. This is Jacksonville in 1914. This is the same location today. It had transit and density, and like most US cities, probably removed it after cars started becoming common.

Huh?

Jacksonville's 1910 population was 57,699 vs 954,614 today.

Contrast that to Boston which had a population of 670,585 in 1910 vs 654,283 today.

That's why Boston has density and transit and Jacksonville doesn't. Cities like Jacksonville (and Los Angeles) removed their streetcar lines because people weren't using them and they were losing money. Cities like Boston and NYC couldn't do that because there was too much existing density for car-only infrastructure.

Your after image shows less streetside parking and the streetcar delete in favor of a bike lane and enlarged tree lined sidewalks (one is near triple width of the before, other is only double width).

The sidewalks are largely irrelevant, since at the time walking in the street was much more common and generally not illegal. Removing the streetcar is a substantial loss. The buildings on the left have been replaced with a parking garage, so the loss of street parking isn't very relevant either. This example is not as bad as many cities in the US, but it's certainly no improvement for pedestrians.

Removing the streetcar is a substantial loss.

Google Maps shows a bus stop at the location you linked, with several routes passing through it. What advantage does the streetcar have over a bus?

I'm also confused by this comparison, surely if you are going to pick a comparison this can't be the most dis-favorable to modern Jacksonville. The density is arguably higher, at least the buildings are taller.

It does show something I did think to myself last time I was in downtown Jacksonville though, the area has an absurd number of parking garages. I assume it's because I-95 is the most convenient way to get there.

I don't think "more" transit is the solution though. There's already several stations within close walking distance along downtown. But look at the top review for Central Station:

Not safe even if security is around they are useless, trams don't come on time. Doors closed on me twice which is dangerous at the same time consuming for commuters since tram time isn't accurate at all.

I picked it because it was the first picture I found of the time period I was looking for, so I wasn't cherry picking. It's not terrible. But I think it does show that Jackonsville was definitely "settled" before cars became common.

A lot of other cities have blue politics, and are still notorious for having the above problems, (well minus shitty down towns).

Including shitty (literally) down towns in at least one case (SF). But go ahead, keep voting D to solve problems which the Ds don't solve; it's traditional.

Including shitty (literally) down towns in at least one case (SF). But go ahead, keep voting D to solve problems which the Ds don't solve; it's traditional.

This comment is paradigmatically partisan, but not paradigmatically evidence-laden. Please be more careful about that.

I agree with the sentiment, but what cities might those be?

Looks mixed to me, more Republican than most cities but they don't have San Francisco Democrats level of dominance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Jacksonville,_Florida

Local politics are indeed quite impactful in the US. In fact back in the day that was the explicit goal - the founders wanted us to care more about our mayor than the president.

Unfortunately the massive rise in federal power and the hero worship of federal politicians with radio and tv has killed local politics. Even if the power is still nominally there, it’s just too boring to entertain the average person compared to the massive waves of attention grabbing content available everywhere.

If you think of electoral politics as team sports, with voting as the equivalent of cheering on your team from the sidelines (a fun activity even if it doesn't impact the result) this explains both the paradox of why people vote even though their votes almost certainly won't make a difference, and why people are drawn towards entertaining politics, even when their vote is more diluted, or even when they don't have a vote: see the numbers of non-Americans who religiously follow Trump-related news or US politics in general, but know little about e.g. their local representatives.

the only known way to decrease housing cost

You're not intellectually mature enough to be permitted on the internet without supervision. Decreasing demand (by, for instance) decreasing the population would also decrease housing cost.

  • -35

I suspect you are not new here, but if you are: this kind of posting is not permitted here.

Banned for a week.

That's unreasonable. In context of 'I actually live here', it's clear that Roman-style decimation or introducing Japanese knotweed or distributing asbestos isn't what he means.

Japanese knotweed

Am I missing something here? How does an invasive weed push down on demand?

Well why would people want to live somewhere infested by an extremely difficult-to-eradicate pest?

No, it lowers property values.

You're not intellectually mature enough to be permitted on the internet without supervision

Where the fuck do you think you are?

Don't forget decreasing demand by triggering massive unemployment or otherwise reducing income.

Or incentivising multiple occupancy.

Mark two

deportation is not fatal, hlynka. cute attempt tho

You didn't say anything about deportation only decreasing the population.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats