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 -
From a comment on Reddit’s Daystrom Institute, a Star Trek subreddit:
The framing of this statement made it clear they were switching from talking of a specific fictional character to obliquely mentioning former President Donald Trump. So, I have a question for the non-Trumpers, never-Trumpers, and former Trumpers of The Motte: prior to and excluding the events of January 6, did you honestly believe Trump was a Hitler-to-be, a potential ender of democracy, a dictator thug, or any other sort of authoritarian who would end the rule of law and instead rule by might? And if so, whose opinion on the matter did you value?
(Please note that you will probably not convince me personally, and a Gish gallop will make me even less likely to listen to your arguments.)
In short: no.
In long: in the beginning, he seemed not too different than other politicians. Lots of smiling, hand-shaking, and declaiming the other side as evil ne'er-do-wells. With time, though, and the demands of the office, I came to see him as a person far out of his league. Not a good administrator. Not a good leader. Not a good engineer. Great at speaking to a certain sort of crowd and turning up the emotions, but that seems to be his only skill. I also found his denial of election results disgusting.
For an example, read the Paris Climate Accord speech. He starts it off by talking about how great America is doing, how many jobs he and his party have given Americans, etc. Off topic. Worse, a cheap shot of flattering his audience, almost insulting. Then he goes over the reasons for getting out of the accord. There he gives some good reasons, but fails to put them together into a well constructed argument. The average themotte user could do better here. I mean, he makes claims full of pathos, without much backing. He loves the American worker. He loves the coal miner. They're his people. So we should mine coal (what about the country's energy policy? Why can't we have nice, dense energy production like nuclear? Why is the coal miner better than my children and grand children, who could have much better lives if we switched to clean, abundant nuclear energy?) And then, throughout the whole piece, you have little snarky remarks about the blue tribe. He and his tribe are working hard to help the American, but the other tribe isn't doing anything, just standing around with their hands in their pockets. Come on, this is high-school-level mockery--at least hit them with something that matters, I mean it's not like the blue tribe doesn't do stupid things.
If we're talking about providing cheap entertainment, he's your man. But if we're talking about leading the country through the tumultuous beginnings of a new century? Bah.
Because he exists? Your children and grandchildren might, but the coal miner is alive now and trying to live in the world today, and hopefully make any kind of world at all for his children and grandchildren. Why are your children and grandchildren better than his?
Also do you really think Trump would have been treated better if he'd backed out of Paris to ramp up nuclear?
More options
Context Copy link
Doesn't this argument justify all short-term thinking?
Also, why can't the coalminer find a different job? Yes, there's both a physical and mental cost to this. But does that justify forcing 330 million citizens to live under a worse energy policy so that 62 thousand of them don't have to re-educate themselves into a different profession? This is the USA--many people here have careers that span half a dozen professions.
I never said that, nor was it implied.
Treated better--by whom? His enemies would be just as critical of him as they were always. His supporters would be just as supportive. A small handful of people who care about energy policy would be happy.
Doesn't the absence of this argument justify working everyone to death in Elon Musk's rocket factories in a desperate attempt to seize the cosmic endowment even one second faster?
This is, of course, a rhetorical question. Yes it does, and Bostrom proved it mathematically some years ago:
https://nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste
More options
Context Copy link
Your argument justifies any and all long term thinking the same way what I said justifies short. Both are necessary for a functional society however. And I would argue that in this situation, where we are required to make a trade off between them, we should go with the one that doesn't hurt people who actually physically exist.
As for the coal miners "forcing 330 million citizens to live under a worse energy policy so that 62 thousand of them don't have to re-educate themselves into a different profession" avoiding that sounds fantastic. Sadly however, it also sounds fantastic, as in not based in reality. Which countries have benefited from shutting down coal power?
Also you implied your grandchildren are better than his to the exact same extent that Trump implied that coal miner is better than your grandchildren. If you never implied it, neither did Trump.
Regarding nuclear, you are right that his enemies would not be less critical than they currently are. Because they would be a thousand times more critical. Environmentalists don't care about the benefits of nuclear power, they are too concerned about the potential dangers.
Edit: forgot a word
I'll concede that my long-term thinking argument was a slippery slope. I should have constrained it by something like "moving to nuclear power sooner rather than later will be advantageous in this half century."
I'm not sure I understand your question about which countries have benefited from shutting down coal power. I want to say--all of them--which is why more governments are building reactors. India and China are building multiple reactors, and I suspect the cleanliness of the energy is secondary to its abundance, which also entails a larger degree of sovereignty. This seems obvious to me, which is why I think we're coming at this from very different angles. What's good about coal power? Does it outweigh the benefits of cheaper, more abundant sources?
I don't think his enemies would be a thousand times more critical. They're already at max critique. They'd critique him for using the wrong side of toilet paper to wipe his butt. Note that I don't consider myself in that camp. I just think he's lacking as a leader.
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