site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   24703 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 25, 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.

8
Top Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

While it'd be nice if throwing money at people decreased the crime rate, I think the strongest defense of welfare has always been that it improves the lives of the people receiving the money -- strong both in the sense that it's pretty self-evidently true, and in the (dark art's / practical) sense that the only real way to fight against the argument is to come out and say you don't care about poor people's wellbeing (which most people don't really want to do).

that the only real way to fight against the argument is to come out and say you don't care about poor people's wellbeing

Or that I care about the well-being of those being taken from as much or more than those being given to.

It is possible to care more about the people being taken from and still support redistributive programs if you believe the things being taken have marginal value such that the people receiving get a lot more utility than the people being taken from lose. I would not put much stock in happiness research either way, but I think the latest is that more money really does continue to make people more happy, though, so maybe the 'marginal value of the dollar' has been overstated.

You know what makes people really happy? Heroin. So while I'm sure giving drug addicts money so they can buy more heroin and make themselves REALLY happy (even if for a short time) will work, and reduce the happiness of the people whose money is taken less than it makes the addicts happy, I'm still against it.

Did I really need to include an exhaustive list of, 'things that make people happy but are bad for them so I would not want to subsidize those things'?

Alternatively, do you think it is literally impossible to have a 'positive-sum' redistributive program that does not boil down to buying people Heroin?

it is literally impossible to have a 'positive-sum' redistributive program that does not boil down to buying people Heroin?

I'll bite the bullet and say I think that it is literally impossible to have a redistributive program that the poor-for-a-reason don't then use to finance terrible decisions, yes. They can be extremely inventive about turning foodstamps into income which they then spend on drugs, for example.

I am not a huge fan of education, and would argue that we as a species don't have a great idea of how to even do 'education' as it is often presented. I suspect that there is an education floor that is necessary and useful though and that our modern education system is more than sufficient to meet that floor, expenditures in excess of it are probably low value. However I believe that for the vast majority of it's existence the American public school system has been an effective redistributive program that produced more value than it cost us as a nation. I think it is increasingly difficult to do good welfare programs because a bunch of sociologists decided to make a bunch of shit up 40 years again and nobody has ever called them on it, but we could do better than we currently are pretty easily. I do not have a strong opinion if any given current program is positive sum, but I think some probably already are, and we could do better than we currently do.

I think you can have a positive-sum redistribution(of course, part of that is accepting that a lot of it is going to the lower middle class rather than the truly poor), just not one that doesn't get spent on drugs by the people who really need to make a wiser purchase with the money, unless you just follow @2rafa's suggestion and pass out free heroin adulterated with poisoned fentanyl.

I do not think a positive-sum redistributive program is likely. While there are instances of redistribution which might be positive sum, I do not believe a program which can reliably find these among the rather larger universe of negative-sum redistribution is possible. As for not buying people heroin, if the people running the program were harsh, flinty-eyed believers in the necessity of their program to do good, they could likely keep that at a minimum. But since the program will actually be run mostly by either disinterested bureaucrats who care only that the metrics they are measured by go up, or worse by bleeding hearts who think providing free heroin is a good thing, there will be plenty of heroin bought.

I think one of the best conservative approaches to drug addiction is just offering addicts maximum legal free fent in safe, clean government spaces without any narcan available and hiring somebody to cart away the bodies.

But then how will we posture?

Presumably by standing on the resulting piles of skulls.

to be honest that would be a cool aesthetic.

Warhammer 40k is popular for a reason!

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