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 -
'Effed up parenting is the wrong idea - the problem is providing a grossly inadequate environment for the child. Homelessness* does that for example, and poverty is causative of homelessness. (So, of course, is NIMBYism). In fact inadequate housing in all its many forms (lead is just the best studied example) is a fairly obvious case where poverty causes inadequate environments that wouldn't show up in twin and adoption studies, and could plausibly affect adult IQ.
Childhood malnutrition is another obvious example - this was a known issue 100 years ago (certainly in the UK a major driver of the early expansion of the welfare state was the number of army recruits who were medically unfit due to the effects of childhood malnutrition) but I don't know how significant it is in the contemporary US (it isn't a big issue in Western Europe). In third world countries there is pretty good evidence that you can reduce childhood malnutrition by giving people money.
"Are there practically significant ways in which giving poor parents money would improve childhood environments in a way which produces long-term benefits?" is a profoundly important and hard empirical question to which the answer is "Yes" in the third world, but which we can't answer in the first world because asking the question correctly involves crimethink-adjacent ideas like "A naive correlational analysis is genetically confounded enough to be worthless." If you think the answer is obviously "Yes" or obviously "No, with the partial exception of lead abatement" then you are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
* Homelessness as in living in shelters, sleeping in cars, couchsurfing etc. Street homelessness has complex causes with drug addiction and untreated mental illness being major factors, but simple homelessness is either caused by a short-term emergency (like a messy breakup or a house fire) or by not being able to afford housing.
Thanks for the clarification.
I believe that(a diet of 90% gruel is after all not very appetizing or nutritious and you'd fix it pretty quickly if you could afford something else), but I'm pretty sure that the dominant case of childhood malnutrition in the US is either shitty parenting(it's just easier to let them eat sweets instead of insisting on dinner) or poor cultural practices(blacks and underclass whites don't eat fruit and will only eat vegetables in highly specific forms that have much of the nutrition leached out, so picky kids miss out on important nutrients). It has the same causes as food deserts- people from certain backgrounds would eat steak if they could afford it but they can't so they eat cheap sausage, bread, and desserts with a soda, and it never occurs to them to eat veggies rice and chicken.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link