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 -
My greatest hope with these export controls are that they're merely graft. Biden has been championing the domestic semiconductor industry, with Congress granting tens of billions in subsidies to build domestic manufacturing. Maybe he's getting a kickback from the companies that benefit. Not the actual semiconductor companies, but the firms and unions involved in constructing and maintaining these specific facilities.
The alternative is that this is preparation for imminent war. The administration are not so dumb that they think this will permanently hinder Chinese industry. I've seen experts forecast that they'll probably be able to develop what they need in 2-3 years.
Why disrupt American industry so greatly for a mere 2-3 years of strategic advantage?
As Gwern points out, this may provoke a response from China. America dictating to a Taiwanese company that it can't sell its wares to China certainly seems like a violation of at least the spirit of the vague One China policy. That's a policy that the West already gets almost all of the benefit from. All China gets out of it is face-saving. The West and Taiwan get to treat Taiwan like a country in every way except name. They even get to have diplomatic relations, and embassies, just by another name.
What would America do if China controlled a vast amount of the world's rare earth mineral mines and decided that they'll no longer sell the products of those mines to America or its allies? Wait, they already do control a vast amount of rare earth minerals. Maybe that's the next step in this dumb escalatory spiral.
What if it were laughably trivial, and instead China secured exclusive access to all avocados grown south of the United States border? Would the United States do nothing?
Curious, given that they tried to achieve this for much longer and consistently failed.
More options
Context Copy link
If they still had access to the Semi tooling industry, then they’d be close to the design rules that other top-tier fabs (Samsung, tsmc, Intel sorta) are at now. They made huge leaps by stealing info, masks, and staff. Without that access to the tooling market, though, they’re dead in the water. If someone tells you that anyone can develop new Semi tooling in that kind of time frame, just stop reading.
This is a huge blow. I, for one, am cheering on the west to take lead again in this industry. I’ve been wishing it privately for a long time now, and I’m especially glad to stop selling to fascists.
More options
Context Copy link
That's what the Chinese did to Japan during the dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, they suspended rare earth exports.
One thing about rare earths (or any resource really) is that there is a nearly unlimited supply at the right price. While China could hamper some industry temporarily, there are plenty of rare Earths available elsewhere, they just aren't economical to extract at current prices.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Reopen Mountain Pass?
That’s what I am conflicted about. Sure, there is no fundamental reasons why the west/US couldn’t mine and extract its own lithium, so that it’s not dependent on China. But, would it actually be able to do it in practice? Would the overcome the political, NIMBY, environmental, ecological etc opposition? Can they actually get necessary know how and workforce to build what is needed?
Consider the current energy crisis in Europe. Seems like the obvious answer would be to just go all in on nuclear fission. Is this what is happening? No, European countries seem like to be more into trying to survive winter, expanding LNG terminals, and hoping that there is enough LNG capacity in future. Will there be? Can they depend on their US ally providing all of it? No, US is still not pushing hard into expanding fossils, instead we still go all in on ESG.
Seems to me that even if it is clear what needs to be done, the ability to actually pull it off is no longer there, there is no leader to pull the Realpolitik off and align everyone towards the goal. Instead, we get the standard multitude of interest groups that just makes everything impossible to build, as usual.
Even the greens have at least stopped digging when it comes to the nuclear power hole.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/world/europe/german-greens-suspend-nuclear-opposition-ahead-of-winter-power-threat-20221017-p5bq9s.html
I think it's one thing to build new power plants and another to start mining an existing mine again.
Germany is not even able to keep their existing power plants open during energy crisis in the face of opposition from the greens. I don’t think reopening a mine closed for more than a decade is going to be any easier.
They, in fact, are able to keep their existing nuclear plants open.
https://apnews.com/article/business-germany-olaf-scholz-christian-lindner-cda1fd82ab1be344ee60ecd67a10f15a
Barely. As the other post mentioned, it's only until April, but, more importantly, it's only three locations for which no new fuel will be purchased. That means that in January at the latest all three plants will have to greatly reduce their power output in order to be able to run all the way into April, at least according to the company maintaining operations.
It should also be mentioned that this decision was only reached after months of discussion. As late as two days ago it seemed plausible that the original end date (the new year) would stay simply because the parties in the governing coalition couldn't agree on this. It has only happened now because the chancellor used a special and very rarely used provision in German law that allows him to shutdown any debate within the (executive branch of the) government on its course of action.
Meh, FWIW, I think most of the Greens just resisted publicly to appease their base, but didn't really. Habeck has been running around arranging gas deals with UAE and Qatar, and Baerbock has been shipping weapons to the Ukraine, both of which would have been unthinkable for Green's just a year ago. He has scolded the public for wanting unrealistic energy solutions.
Apparently the issue was resolved in four minutes when the cabinet met; hardly the sign of firm opposition.
Perhaps I'm too optimistic, and the anti-nuclear segments are too strong, but I think the Greens have grown up somewhat, due to actually having power and having to deal with a crisis.
Also, the country is facing up to the fact that it's likely to be a tough winter -- many townships in Bavaria are putting out disaster preparedness advisories, warning of potential power and water outages.
Eh, really? I've been under the impression that the Greens are the "American lapdog" party first and foremost for far longer than that. They've been called the "olive greens" (as in the colour of military uniforms) in certain circles all the way since a Green minister of foreign affairs (Joschka Fischer) made us go to Afghanistan in 2001. If the US government went as far as saying explicitly that Germany must leave its NPPs open (which I imagine would happen if they lost faith in Germany's ability to continue manufacturing support for Ukraine otherwise), I'm sure the Greens would quickly find a way to square the ideological circle there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Nasrudin was caught in the act and sentenced to die. Hauled up before the king, he was asked by the Royal Presence: "Is there any reason at all why I shouldn't have your head off right now?" To which he replied: "Oh, King, live forever! Know that I, the mullah Nasrudin, am the greatest teacher in your kingdom, and it would surely be a waste to kill such a great teacher. So skilled am I that I could even teach your favorite horse to sing, given a year to work on it." The king was amused, and said: "Very well then, you move into the stable immediately, and if the horse isn't singing a year from now, we'll think of something interesting to do with you."
As he was returning to his cell to pick up his spare rags, his cellmate remonstrated with him: "Now that was really stupid. You know you can't teach that horse to sing, no matter how long you try." Nasrudin's response: "Not at all. I have a year now that I didn't have before. And a lot of things can happen in a year. The king might die. The horse might die. I might die.
"And, who knows? Maybe the horse will sing."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Nice, that gives me some hope for the future of Western civilization.
More options
Context Copy link
...until April...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link