site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 7, 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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Another argument some would make is 'if local voters want to spend more of their money on their childrens' education - shouldn't they be able to? must we prevent them from doing so with more taxes and redistribution?', but I think this unnecessarily argues both property rights / local control and optimal policy.

This was the main angle I was intending to take. I probably agree that state-level policies should provide for sufficient funds for all schools to meet some minimal standard, but I cannot see any moral case for insisting that all schools must receive the same funding above that threshold. If a wealthy community wants to build an unusually nice football stadium for their kids, I don't see the sin in that and I don't see the obligation to redistribute an exactly equal amount of funding to schools in poorer communities. I really can't relate to the egalitarian impulse to make everything equally mediocre everywhere.

I cannot see any moral case for insisting that all schools must receive the same funding above that threshold

If we lived in a society where antibiotics and clean water were restricted to the rich, and the rich and poor were much less sorted by IQ than they are, there's a strong argument that money is better spent giving poor communities basic medical care, sanitation, and nutrition than it is improving the athletic facilities at rich schools, even if the tax burden is onerous - and this'd be economically beneficial for everyone in the long term. Although that'd look less like redistribution and more like 'development', if higher taxes on the rich was the best way to accomplish it (which it might not be), I'd support that. But that's not where we are now. It is where people sort of imagine / hallucinate that we are, though, which is why I don't like making that argument