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 -
I have never understood what is so paradoxical about the "diamond–water paradox." Or why it's so religiously cited by libertarian adjacent people.
Asking why water is cheaper than diamonds is like asking why are housing construction parts cheaper than built houses. Wow, such a "paradox." Besides the obvious, imagine a world where housing parts were cheaper than houses. Very soon all houses would be stripped for the more precious copper and wood beams inside. Until society reasserts itself to sanity and "revalues" houses more than wood piles.
Similarly, imagine a world where diamonds really were cheaper than water. 1 of 3 reality outcomes emerges, it seems to me.
Everyone dies very quickly as a cup of water is equivalent to a cup of diamonds, meaning only a couple dozen people on earth can consume water regularly enough to survive. Lots of fighting occurs.
Diamonds are actually super common and worth less than a bottle of water, despite maybe being acknowledged by some as pretty. Like smooth stones or pinecones.
Diamonds are still relatively rare but regarded as fairly worthless and uninteresting. Akin to a seashell with a unique pattern.
Any attempt to abrogate these possibilities will be smacked down and reasserted by reality. Diamonds simply CAN'T be cheaper than water for any length of time - at least in a 1 scenario. Like with the houses and their parts, water is priced in as an underpinning of pretty much all economic activity, because it's necessary for life. It needs to therefore be trivially cheap or free. When you buy a house, you are buying an equivalent amount of water to keep everyone hydrated in its production. When you buy diamonds, you are buying water it takes to harvest and maintain them, up until the point where they enter your hands.
Where's the paradox? This doesn't seem hard to see, to me.
More options
Context Copy link