site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   31362 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 24, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Let's say the ultra-elite in the US is something like 10,000 families. That's accounting for the roughly 700 billionaires, a larger number of 9-digit millionaires, some political elites, some cultural elites, and a few odds and ends. If 1/4 of those have a kid in college at any given time, that's say roughly 2500 ultra-elite students in college at any moment.

3% of Harvard are from the 0.1 percentile. That is 50 kids per grade. The threshold to get into the top 0.1% by income is supposedly $1.6M. These people are not rich or elite in a meaningful way. The top 0.01% have a threshold income of $7.5M, and these are comfortably well off. There are about 16k of these families. One thing worth remembering is that almost all very rich people are very, very old, so their grandkids are the ones going to college, not their kids. If there are 50 kids from the 0.1% then there are perhaps 5 to 10 from the 0.01 percentile, the people you would consider elite.

From personal experience, there are about that many actually rich American kids at these colleges, and perhaps the same number, or more, of rich foreign kids.

The threshold to get into the top 0.1% by income is supposedly $1.6M. These people are not rich or elite in a meaningful way. The top 0.01% have a threshold income of $7.5M, and these are comfortably well off.

Ah yes, somewhere between $1.6M-$7.5M per year is where someone becomes "comfortably well off". People sitting at a mere $3M per annum are not yet all that comfortable, and those that have barely cracked seven figures are basically impoverished. They don't even have yachts!

Perhaps I could have phrased this a little better. The point is that people who earn $2M a year are by no means "the elite." By the time you are in the 0.01% you are probably at least on first-name terms with a lot of actually elite people.

The modal person with an income of $2M probably owns some car dealerships. This might make him a big shot in his town, but it does not make him elite.

We've run those laps quite a few times, but it's interesting how "elite" gets defined. Someone with a seven-figure salary can accrue an eight-figure net worth pretty trivially, which certainly allows for a fairly extravagant lifestyle with little or no risk. But it's true, the modal person with that income level is going to be something fairly ordinary sounding. Who's elite, the car dealer that has secured generational wealth for his family, or the New York Times editor that has high-ranking DoJ officials on speed dial?

I wouldn't say the New York Times editor is all that elite as an individual.

He's part of a powerful group, certainly, but the only power he exercises is on behalf of the group and in conjunction with the rest of the group. He has little individual decision making power and is not a mover or shaker in his own right. If he goes against the group, he's out. And he's unlikely to have significant pull within the group on his own either. He may have DoJ officials on speed dial, but he certainly can't call in favours on his own personal behalf and he will be in trouble if he attempts. He's a cog in a machine.

This is in fact reflected in their income which is ~$76k a year on average. That's certainly not nothing, but it certainly isn't fuck-you money either. It's enough to live comfortably, but it's not going to allow you to build a serious buffer so you can pick fights later.

The car dealer may be further removed from national power in a 'six degrees of Kevin Bacon' sense, but he has more money. If he, as an individual, wants to try and get something done, he has more money to try it with. If someone picks a fight with him, he has more money to defend himself. As an individual, he is in a better position than the NYT editor.

On a national scale neither is elite, their individual influence can both be rounded down to zero. But don't forget that in small towns, people like this successful car dealer are often the ones who rule the roost. The car dealer's words will have measurable weight there, if he wants them to.

If he, as an individual, wants to try and get something done, he has more money to try it with.

If he as an individual wants to change anything political, the New York Times editor has a lot more ability to do it even if he has a smaller salary.

Well, I doubt that.

The editors aren't there of their own accord, even the chief editor isn't there on his own behalf. They're people doing jobs. Of course any of them could go rogue and maybe manage to get something published once or twice, but they would be swiftly removed from their positions. If their loyalty was in question they wouldn't have been hired in the first place.

The owners could reposition the paper, but then again, no one doubts that the Sulzbergers are anything but elite.

I'd suggest that the editors have discretion within a big range. We all know about Cade Metz' hit piece on Scott. I doubt that the owner said "Go do a hit piece on Scott". He did it on his own, having permission to do anything within the broad category "calling people Nazis and favoring the left".

It's true that he couldn't write any story whatsoever; I'm sure a pro-Trump story would get him fired. But being an editor at the Times gave him a huge amount of power. There's no way a car dealer could do that.

Uh, you might be confusing income with personal wealth, or you have very strange standards. Having $1.6M doesn't make you particularly rich. Earning $1.6M per year definitely does. Unless you just think that schmoes like George W. Bush (net worth of ~$40M) aren't "rich or elite in a meaningful way".

George W. Bush is not a central example of a person with a $40 million net worth.

$40 million is incredibly common in the U.S.

According to Credit Suisse, there are 140,000 ultra-high net worth individuals in the U.S., defined as people with a net worth over $50 million. This is a huge group. The average member of this group is someone like a car dealership owner, a dentist who sold his practice and then invested well, or an early FAANG employee.

It is not rare. It is not elite.

Being in the top 0.1% doesn't count as elite? I don't see why the people you described can't be elite. The most expensive house in my city, which is an actual mansion, was bought by a car dealership owner.

I don't think George W Bush would be elite if his only credential was his money. Is Russel Okung meaningfully elite?

Well, yes? An NFL player would be enough by itself, but it looks like he also started a charity foundation. He undoubtedly has strong sponsorship and college connections. Clearly the definition of "elite" is going to be subjective, but do you think a former NFL player is going to be turned away from a schmoozy high-status party?

Some people on The Motte seem to have really REALLY high standards. Maybe you're Silicon Valley CEOs slumming it with the rest of us. :)

Fair enough, I think we're using different measures of elite. I'd say my best definition elite is someone who can show up at the Oval Office without an appointment and get a meeting without a meaningful wait.

Or maybe at Mr. Burns' birthday party...

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