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 -
OP, I like your idea but my main criticism is that it doesn't actually do enough to hold officials accountable. I'd actually go much further.
My personal belief is that entering politics should permanently cap your income and total assets - if you're a politician, you make the same income as the median worker in your constituency, and you may have a home that is worth slightly more than the median home for someone in your constituency. At the same time, you and all of your extended family members agree that your accounts can be reviewed by the public as necessary to ensure that there aren't any favours being dealt out to family members. It is an invasion of privacy, but if someone is going to adopt such an important role that's just something they have to accept.
This doesn't just give politicians skin in the game and a meaningful incentive to improve conditions for the people they represent, it also shifts the filtering on what type of people go into politics. Going into public office should absolutely not be viewed as a way to acquire financial benefits - it should be an act of meaningful self sacrifice, and while this might prevent someone like Bryan Johnson or Donald Trump from running for office, I don't see that as much of a problem.
Do this but multiply the number by like 10x. That'd at least give the income to attract the most talented people and leverage up the effect enough that they'd meaningfully feel an improvement.
More options
Context Copy link
Ez way to get around this is the Saudi Arabia/Jared Kusher method. All you do is promise the politician an excellent life on their dime after you retire as long as they do your bidding while in power. I'm sure lots and lots of people would accept this, I would too were the reward say $5 million a year worth of spending power for the rest of my life, paid for by Saudi Arabia in a way that the money never enters my hands and so satisfies your requirements (just take out a large suite at the Waldorf Astoria permanently).
If you're a big donor whose reputation would suffer were you to short-change your politician pawns and thus stop the next generations of politicians from coming under your thumb you have an incentive to make good on your obligations, which you will do (as Saudia Arabia did for Kushner when Trump fell from power).
More options
Context Copy link
This would select for low-skilled ideologues instead talented and pragmatic people. Also, the increased scrutiny might be more than counterbalanced by the increased need/incentive for corruption.
It's not clear that selecting for low-skilled ideologues is worse than selecting for high-skilled liars who are still for sale to whatever corporate bidder comes along.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Easy, levy a $100k tax on everyone who earns under $500k a year. Some say this is already happening in certain zip codes (with extra steps of course).
More options
Context Copy link
This provides a built-in incentive for leveling policies, which seems like a very bad idea.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link