site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29790 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I recently found an interesting post about the driving/transit+walking divide that I'd like to discuss some here: If We Want a Shift to Walking, We Need to Prioritize Dignity.

The basic point that this article makes is that a good and necessary measure as to whether people would actually want to walk somewhere looks like so:

If you were driving past and saw a friend walking or rolling there [on a sidewalk], what would your first thought be:

  1. “Oh, no, Henry’s car must have broken down! I better offer him a ride.”

  2. “Oh, looks like Henry’s out for a walk! I should text him later.”

I would like to use this to assert that: For 99% of modern-day American cities that are not currently pedestrian-friendly, there is no reasonable change that will ever make them so.

The problem is that, once you build a city to be car-friendly in the modern American style, with 3-4+ lane arterial surface roads and expressways everywhere and all businesses having massive parking lots that are virtually never full, the structure of your city is fundamentally unwalkable. You can toss in some sidewalks and buses, but you'll never create a landscape where people actually want to walk places. Not that literally nobody will ever walk anywhere, but where people who have money and status and can afford to keep cars will actively choose to walk and take busses to places instead of driving.

Here's a link to a Google Street View of a random road in a random medium-small city in America. It's actually fairly urban compared to the surrounding region, but I'm pretty sure nobody who has any alternatives chooses to walk there. And in fact, there aren't any pedestrians visible on that road in Street View. You can create some paths to walk on, but you can't duct-tape making walking dignified and respectable onto a region where it isn't already.

IMO, the majority of attempts to make walkable neighborhoods in non-walkable regions are not particularly useful. Usually, they're in residential areas, and you can maybe make that one neighborhood walkable, and create one little walkable urban square with some restaurants, coffee shops, light retail, a bar or two, etc. But you're not going to be able to create an area where a successful person can access everything they want to be able to do regularly with walking and transit, because they can't get anywhere but that one little urban square easily. Not saying that they aren't pleasant or that people living there don't like them, but they're never going to lead to a region or society where people choose not to have cars.

I recently found an interesting post about the driving/transit+walking divide that I'd like to discuss some here: If We Want a Shift to Walking, We Need to Prioritize Dignity.

The short version of that being that pedestrians are special snowflakes who won't walk unless the built environment is just right. Meanwhile, looking at your Sioux Falls shot, the issue isn't so much "dignity" as scale. Well, that, and the fact that no one wants to walk to car dealerships. The blocks are about 0.5 mile x 1 mile. If you want to have a pancake breakfast and then head over to pick up your new handgun, that's over a 20 minute walk. It's not a matter of dignity or respect. Making the walk nicer isn't going to make it take less time.

While I lean towards defending the car culture side in the overall debate, I think I'd soften that a bit. See how much the car drivers moan when they have to wade into an environment that actually does favor pedestrians and transit at a large scale, like Manhattan. Are the car drivers special snowflakes who hate to drive unless they have massive free parking lots everywhere, lots of wide-open 45mph multilane roads, and very few pesky pedestrians who have a tendency to go every which way on a whim?

I'd say more neutrally that the desires of drivers and pedestrians are fundamentally at odds with each other. A large-scale environment that's great for walking, like good enough that Sam the Stockbroker in Manhattan, who makes enough to keep a BMW in a private garage, chooses to walk and take the train to his job anyways because it's easier and better, will inevitably be bad for cars, due to expensive and scarce parking, slow and narrow streets, and pedestrians going every which way. Meanwhile, if it's great for driving, it will suck for walking, because of the huge parking lots, huge distances between things, and narrow and poorly maintained sidewalks with intimidating high-speed car traffic only a few feet away. My overall point is more that any environment that favors one or the other cannot be changed to be the other way without basically demolishing the entire city and rebuilding everything differently.

See how much the car drivers moan when they have to wade into an environment that actually does favor pedestrians and transit at a large scale, like Manhattan. Are the car drivers special snowflakes who hate to drive unless they have massive free parking lots everywhere, lots of wide-open 45mph multilane roads, and very few pesky pedestrians who have a tendency to go every which way on a whim?

You have to work very hard to make cars worse than walking and transit. And despite all the effort Manhattan puts into that, it's still full of cars, so the answer to your question is "no".

Are the car drivers special snowflakes who hate to drive unless they have massive free parking lots everywhere, lots of wide-open 45mph multilane roads, and very few pesky pedestrians who have a tendency to go every which way on a whim?

Car drivers dont want to go to Manhattan at all. No one doe, really. They are forced to because its a place with concentrated economic opportunities.

No one doe, really

Hm, I don't know. I hear that there are certain cultural advantages to going into Manhattan. Theater and art and live music and comedy, for example.

And, in addition to the current Hollywood releases, here is a list of movies playing in Manhattan (a Tuesday, btw):

20 Days in Mariupol
Afire
Antichrist
Avanti!
Biosphere
Bobi Wine: The People's President
Close to Vermeer
Contempt (le Mepris)
Earth Mama
El Agua
Ghost in the Shell
Have You Got It Yet? The Story of Syd Barrett and Pink Floyd
I Was Born, But...
I Vitelloni Kokomo City
Lakota Nation vs. United States
Long Day's Journey Into Night
Love & Basketball
Out Of Sight
Past Lives
Persona
Revoir Paris Rocky Aur Rani Ki Prem Kahaani
Showgirls
Shrapnel Sympathy for the Devil
The Lost Weekend
The Rules of the Game
The Flowers Of St. Francis
The Spirit Of St. Louis
The Unknown Country
The Beasts
The Mother and the Whore
The Wicker Man
The Lesson
Theater Camp
Umberto Eco: A Library Of The World
Walid War Pony

We Need To Talk About Kevin

While We Watched
You Hurt My Feelings

Sure that is a bit interesting. How many of those people going to Manhattan for a movie/play both drive a car there AND complain incessantly about pedestrians?

Manhattan has an awful lot of $500/month+ parking spaces for a place nobody wants to drive to. And an awful lot of $2k/month and up (way, way up) apartments for a place nobody wants to live in. The oddball hoops you have to jump through to get a rental there suggest that the number of people who very badly want to live there and are willing to pay out the nose for the privilege remain quite high.

I don't think it's that controversial of a statement to say that people who like urban spaces really like them and are willing to pay and make other sacrifices to live there (small spaces and lots of possibly annoying neighbors nearby), and people who like rural spaces also really like them and are willing to make different sacrifices to live there (nothing close by, moderate drive to get to 1 or 2 small grocery stores, hardware stores, bars, etc and maybe very long drive to get to any more or bigger of the above).

There are people who like it, a small amount. There are a greater number of people who like not having to drive to their job because it is so close. The people driving there don't want to be there at all, they wish they could magic their office to a different location not in Manhattan.

Do you actually think that there is nobody who would want to be in Manhattan, except for that it affords them opportunities to make money? I spent some time in NYC and found certain parts of Manhattan extremely appealing. Sure, I understand for that a lot of people who feel a much greater desire for space than I do, it could be unbearably crowded and restricting. For bug-men like me, though, having so many different things to do, in such a small and walkable/transit-accessible environment, Manhattan’s appeal is evident.

There is always somebody who wants something. But most people are there to collect money, yes.

Roughly 1.7 million people live in Manhattan, a great many of whom were born there and have lived there for their entire lives. They have roots there - deep social networks, connections to their local neighborhoods and communities, and to the activities offered by those communities. Is this another one of those delusional posts where a non-urbanite assumes that nobody actually likes living in cities, or feels any connection to the cities where they live?

No, I'm merely commenting on the commuters and the people who live in Manhattan because of proximity to their work. This will be the majority of people in Manhattan during business hours.

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