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 -
You don't see the monkey's paw in your proposal? You now have divided the country, 1984 style, into the criminals, the proles -- the people living on these reservations -- the Outer Party (the people living in the regular part of the country), and the Inner Party (the people who decide who goes where). Life in the regular part of country becomes extremely regimented, with everyone constantly in fear of being sent to the reservation for the most minor (or imagined) of offenses if they happen to get on the wrong side of the Inner Party.
To some extent Pygonyangification is a risk, but the current elite already has the power to ruin your life, strip you of your livelihood and take your money (something that effectively means you're going to have to move out of Manhattan anyway), so what's the difference?
More options
Context Copy link
Just allow people freedom of association and this problem disappears entirely. It should be legal to create an HoA that doesn't allow felons, for example.
Freedom of association is impossible in an 'equity' focused social order. What you're describing is exactly what Redlining was, and the modern incarnation of crime map overlays on Zillow was axed precisely because it was 'disequitable'.
Absolutely. Many other things--such as competence tests, and as we've seen recently background checks--are impossible too, but they're boiling the frog slowly.
Thankfully humans aren't frogs, and people can literally move away when things get too bad. Once excess wealth is no longer free for the taking, market forces force a rationalization either by failure or by reform. Plenty of housing projects and suburban neighbourhoods became failures once black people moved in and the property values collapsed due to the rise in crime, with no amount of cajoling or 'rejuvenation' actually moving the needle on the prices. Barring mandatory state-facilitated wealth transfers, which also presumes both full state capture and maintenance of state capability, I don't see these trends sustaining long term to reach a denouement for either the Equity or the Libertarian viewpoints.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's like letting the police use stun guns. If you give the authorities "less severe" options, they can get away with using them more without being raked over the coals by the general public, or at least with being treated more leniently by the courts. So the more lenient punishment is not going to be just used as a replacement for a more severe one, it will also be used against more people, more often. Having a sort of half-jail makes it a lot easier for people who haven't done any real harm, but are easy to catch and punish under anarcho-tyranny, to be punished. (You can even argue that probation works like this already. Caning, as suggested by someone below, would be in danger of ending up like this this too.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link