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 -
What is the correct answer to the reasoning test? My position is that while the WEF holds no formal power, paying some degree of attention to it makes sense to keep a finger on the pulse of what technocratic policymakers think would be basically pretty good ideas. In 2020, I observed an arbitrary level of power exercised by both federal and local bureaucrats in seemingly mundane agencies - the CDC suddenly discovered that it had the power to set national housing policy and require landlords to house people indefinitely, local agencies followed broader leads in determining which businesses (and even which aisles in those businesses) may remain open.
Seeing these incredibly broad powers exercised with no meaningful check suggests to me that I could see public health, land management, energy departments, and so on take similarly strong and broad-reaching policies to address the putative emergencies of climate change, refugee resettlement, natural disasters, famine, and wars. If the CDC can force quartering of the destitute indefinitely, why couldn't the Department of Energy place heavy restrictions on use of gas-powered vehicles or the Department of Agriculture implement a ban on certain meat products?
This does not require believing in an evil conspiracy master-minded by the dastardly Schwab. In fact, it would be easier to address if there was a dastardly conspiracy afoot! Instead, it just looks like an incredibly boring set of safety-minded bureaucrats getting together to decide what's best for everyone going forward, to all appearances being basically sincere in their belief that they're serving the public.
Is your position that these issues are not important, or that you have superior policies in mind? If not, what problems do you think are important (aside from the well-tread topics of wokeness and the CDC)?
My complaint isn't that the issues aren't important, it's that they should not be considered license to create arbitrary powers for government agencies and that nothing about them validates abrogation of constitutional rights in the fashion that Covid was used to justify. Whatever their importance, they're not temporal emergencies, they're issues that should be subject to the severe policy-making constraints of limitations on federal powers that would have been considered normal a century ago rather than the unlimited capacity that seems possible now.
More options
Context Copy link
Not to promote this view necessarily, but I believe that the WEF-conspiracist POV on this is that it's not even important which issues are chosen -- the WEF solution to any issue is globalist techno-totalitarianism; the consolidation of power is the point, not the issues themselves.
I will promote the view, and yes that is a succinct way of phrasing my objections to the whole thing. Thank you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link