site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   26688 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 11, 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.

6
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

One thing I'd add is that past examples like good advice or straight up having the cash to assist with certain major purchases, parents can further advantage their kids. They add their underage children (or of age, but that's less relevant) as an authorized user to a specific credit card. Paid in full, on time, utilizing ~7-15% of limit, and increasing limit every 6 months-year... kid could reach adulthood with a perfect score and many years of reliable history.

This knowledge is becoming more common in various different populations- my upper middle class friends' parents who worked in accounting/finance did this for their kids about 20 years ago (mine did not), but I recently had an uber driver who had been doing this for his teenagers.

I expect as underage credit building becomes more common, young adult scores will become less indicative of ability to pay, though I imagine fuckups will ruin their own scores quickly enough for the system to correct things. I expect said fuckups will be a central example of how credit is a privilege based system, though it's more of a loophole exploit that didn't substantially exist for most of the system's history.

I had an AP civics teacher tell every kid in his classes this. Midway through college I had an massive credit score and the bureaus showed me having 30 years of history (?!?).

Gotta trust your kid enough not to be a dumbass though.

I hadn't even considered the possibility of yet-born kids being added for credit purposes (I have contemplated descendant trusts at length). Dunno about authorized users requiring SSN or not.

This doesn't give you a perfect score as your history only has a single credit type, but it does give you a very good score.

However based on the very small sample of people whose detailed financial history I've seen the apple doesn't fall far from the tree regarding credit factors.

This doesn't give you a perfect score as your history only has a single credit type, but it does give you a very good score.

You don’t need a perfect score, you need above 680(or well into the 700’s if you want to get a better rate).

You're absolutely correct that no credit mix = no 850, the actual perfect score.

But my understanding is that above 760 there aren't any better rates or other perks, it's just a nicer cushion.

Auto loan is certainly possible with parental cosigner.

Mortgage is kinda wacky but could be done with parental cosigner with the kid still living with parents but landlording to pay mortgage. Down payment on a house would certainly be worth more than covering tuition at most colleges/most subjects, even if housing is in a bit of a bubble and rates are ass.

They add their underage children (or of age, but that's less relevant) as an authorized user to a specific credit card. Paid in full, on time, utilizing ~7-15% of limit, and increasing limit every 6 months-year... kid could reach adulthood with a perfect score and many years of reliable history.

I taught a middle school personal finance class for a credit union a while back, and the advice was basically this, or to at least get a credit card at 18, even if you don't need it (especially when you don't need it!) use it a bit, and pay it off in full each month.

At the same time, the American finance system seems reasonably lenient on young people with steady jobs. I walked into a car dealership with no credit but an annual work contract, and walked out with a decent car. The interest rate wasn't great, but it was in an era of very low rates, so I didn't notice that much. This was financed through the (used) dealer, and it might be much harder for someone with no credit history to finance a car they found online. As it probably should be? Many people are unable to evaluate cars on their own, independently of general trustworthiness.

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