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 -
The rightoid conspiracy theorists are directionally correct, though, aren't they? "The elites want a future where blue collar people to eat bugs and live in pods" is a reasonable extrapolation of (a) the elite's climate doomerism, (b) spiralling (upwards) urban house prices, and (c) the Davos class' obvious contempt for the Western working class.
If Klaus Schwab and his more successful attendees don't want this future, it's only because they haven't played out their own beliefs far enough in their own heads, not because it's anathema to them. It will be their intent if it's not already; they just haven't game-planned that far. This is precisely why the rightoid memes are believed - because they're credible, because they're consistent with what we know about these people, because they're coherent with the visions of the future which they have stated publicly.
Trying to tar belief in these conspiracies as "embarrassing" is just shaming tactics, and you'll not "tut tut how gauche and low status" me out of them by making irrelevant points that Klaus Schwab himself is kind of a loser (to the extent that a man with a million dollar salary can be a loser). Yeah, he's not in the Illuminati, but his opinions are representative of the heads of government that come to his ski resort, who are.
I think the difference is that the elites aren't going to be banning large homes and meat, they're just trying to price in externalities as appropriate. The conspiracies are embarrassing because the have the vibe of "The elites hate us and we should angrily riot to resist them". The better response would be try to come up with other more acceptable solutions that price in externalities.
"Ban? No, no. I'm just going to tax you until you are too poor to eat a hamburger or have a garage. But we aren't banning anything."
More options
Context Copy link
UN claims that climate change is threat to human survival. There are 8 B humans alive today. FEMA claims that a human life is worth 7.5 M USD. The world produces 59.4 B kg of beef per year.
Putting these numbers together, 8B*7.5M USD/(59.4B kg)=1010101 USD/kg is what the tax on beef should be for the consumer to fully internalize the externality of human extinction.
I would say that such price amounts to ban for all but the superwealthy.
More options
Context Copy link
Fully outside the context of conspiracy theories, recent history and existing upcoming plans on bans vs pricing in externalities hasn't been promising. Or even just letting people judge internal costs themselves, in the case of incandescent lights.
And I'm not even sure to what extent the pushback comes from elites, versus populists. Some brands of populist like bans because many people read 'pricing in externalites' as letting rich people keep sinning while the masses suffer, vs the fairness of everyone suffering.
More options
Context Copy link
It's not happening, and it's good that it is?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link