site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7mo ago (text post)   29347 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

As a young person I have little to no expectation of receiving social security money.

Yeah, this is the most brutal part. Seeing such a huge chunk of every paycheck taken, knowing that you'll never see a cent of it again even though the justification is that you're 'saving for your own retirement.' What a huge disaster, sigh.

Should just be labelled "Boomer bribe" on my taxes. That is the oldest generation that is cogent enough to still defend it, and why it is untouchable as an issue in elections.

If historians were competent they'd label this FDR's greatest blunder. He established a generational pyramid scheme, and instead gets seen as some great savior. This has been a ticking time bomb since day one.

I think that FDR's only real blunder was not realizing how quickly the average life expectancy of a 21-year-old American would rise. The first monthly payment of Social Security was issued in 1940 to a 65-year-old. Of all the men who were born in 1875 and made it to 21-years-old (thus eliminating the infant mortality effect on life expectancy statistics), about 54% made it to 65 and collected social security. Those were the numbers FDR was working with. A little over half of people, dragged up by women's longer life spans (60% of their cohort made it from 21 to 65), would live to actually collect social security.

By 1960 this number was 60% of men, 70% of women. In 1990 the men who turned 65 that year and got their social security checks represented 72% of their age cohort who made it to 21, along with 83% of women.

Similarly, those men that turned 65 in 1940 were expected to live another 13 years, and collect benefits for all 13. The women, 15 years. In 1990, the men were expected to live 15 years, the women 20. This is all from the Social Security Administration's own website. I'm sure that if you found the actuarial tables on the cohorts turning 65 in 2000, 2010, and 2020, you'd see this number just keep going up.

That's why its going broke. It was designed for a certain amount of people to live, and gosh darn it people just kept on living more.

That was predictable. Life expectancy had been going up at the time.

There were other predictable problems:

  1. If the number of children born decreased. The demographics have to look like a pyramid, if it looks like a tube the thing falls apart.
  2. If the government ever touches the money allocated for social security.
  3. If any politician comes along and offers to make social security more generous.

If the government ever touches the money allocated for social security.

It's actually mandated by the program that they do. It purchases treasuries. What would you have them do with it?

Anything other than US treasuries. The whole point of the trust fund should be not to require government action to repay.

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