site banner

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.