site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31013 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 2023

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In the most famous case, Schwab was alleged to have told the public that, in the future "You'll own nothing and you'll be happy"

...

Instead, the WEF posted a video on its Facebook page

If you're going to deboonk the embarrassing rightoid conspiracy theorists, who lack baseline critical thinking ability, can you at least look up Know Your Meme? I have no idea what you're talking about, I never heard anything about a sinister announcement. The first I heard of it was literally from the Facebook video, and it was embarrassing enough to the WEF all on it's own, that they ended up taking it down, as well as the original article.

Other examples are myriad, but include in many cases phrases about 'eating bugs' and 'living in pods'. The former stems from a 2017 twitter post by the leftist magazine 'Mother Jones' (which, by the way, made fun of the idea of eating bugs) and some human interest stories by food blogs about eating bugs

Yes, us embarrassing conspiracy theorists absolutely did not look up things like Novel Food or Food 2030 research policies. We are guided like sheep by Mother Jones.

If you like lobster, you already eat "bugs".

This, and the bit about pods just sounds like "it's not happening, and if it's happening it's a good thing".

The fact that some people on the right unironically fall for this is embarassing.

No. Business, and government leaders aren't spending millions on this conference for fun, and public figures around the world are not simultaneously chanting the same slogans like "Build Back Better" by coincidence.

The eu novel food regulation is a broad system for regulating "food that had not been consumed to a significant degree by humans in the EU before 15 May 1997, when the first Regulation on novel food came into force.". More "central" examples, from that page:

Examples of Novel Food include new sources of vitamin K (menaquinone) or extracts from existing food (Antarctic Krill oil rich in phospholipids from Euphausia superba), agricultural products from third countries (chia seeds, noni fruit juice), or food derived from new production processes (UV-treated food (milk, bread, mushrooms and yeast).

The novel food catalogue has several hundred items! A few insect products were approved along with hundreds of plants, and someone tweeted about it.

That Food 2030 link sets out "10 areas known as pathways for action":

Governance and systems change, Urban food system transformation, Food from the oceans and freshwater resources, Alternative proteins and dietary shift, Food waste and resource efficiency, The microbiome world, Healthy, sustainable and personalised nutrition, Food safety systems of the future, Food systems Africa, Food systems and data

This is a variety of goals, and 'eating bugs' only fits into one (dietary shift).

From a WEF opinion called What will we eat in 2030?:

One can imagine a different food system. If we lived in a world where demand was different – perhaps because people wanted to eat healthily and sustainably – it is possible to imagine a much greater mix of big and small farms, producing a larger range of produce, employing more people and creating a more local and circular economy. So what might we eat in 2030? I think demand will be shifting and more people will want to eat a healthy diet, one that is less intensive (and wasteful) of resources. The increasing emergence of localism, wholefoods, organic, artisanal and “real food” movements is a sign of this – at least for the rich and dedicated. So our diets may be more veg and fruit, whole grains and vegetarian food or new alternatives (soya products, or perhaps insects or artificial meat), and less fried and sugary things. We’ll still eat meat, but, perhaps more like our parents and grandparents, see it as a treat to savour every few days.

Sure, it mentions insects, and meat reduction ... but along with 'organic, whole foods' and 'small farms, local economy'. This isn't an 'elite planning to force people to replace meat with insects', it's just vague vibes about Creating A Better World.

I think the real question then becomes why insects and meat reduction is seen as creating a better world.

Meat has a large environmental impact. Reducing our environmental impact "is seen as creating a better world". Modus ponens.

If it were truly for our benefit, our leaders would be leading by example. I will never, ever, ever, follow the words of a hypocrite who does not also live by the creed they would demand of me.

I assume there are also super elite places where you can be beaten with sticks for $500, or even $5000. When everyone only has stick beatings as a choice of entertainment, it's a different situation.

Why should I take the stated goals on their face value if the entire claim is they're circumventing the democratic process by rubbing shoulders at these conferences?

Sure, it mentions insects, but along with 'organic, whole foods' and 'small farms' and 'circular economy'. This isn't an 'elite planning to force people to eat insects'.

Why do you think insects are being suddenly and simultaneously approved for consumption in all these countries? Did I miss some "Eat The Bugs" party sweep the elections?

You shouldn't take stated goals on their face if there's some reason to believe otherwise ... but what reason is there? Businesses paying to get access to politicians or influential people is hardly surprising or a WEF exclusive.

circumventing the democratic process

How do you think democracy works? "The people" aren't drafting legislation and regulations, interest groups, lobbyists, staffers etc promote or write them, and networking and conferences to that effect are necessary and normal. There's always some elite, even if only by stratification of competence and interest, iron law of oligarchy etc. "a democratic republic" has always been about delegating the responsibility of creating and enforcing laws to 'representatives'. Nothing outside that norm is happening here. Of course, those 'elites' can be malicious, democracy may be a lie and harmful, but that the people aren't having a vote on Proposition 5928: Eat The Bugs Act is entirely expected (was there an explicit vote on the Air Fryer Act or the EUV Lithography Act?)

Why do you think insects are being suddenly and simultaneously approved for consumption in all these countries

Maybe some companies applied for approval, and tried to create buzz about it by pitching it as green and sustainable? There is an application process.

Finally I'm not at all convinced 'the bugs' are unhealthier than much of the current american diet. Is there any evidence for that, beyond "modern food bad + insect disgusting + elites not nice"?

Finally I'm not at all convinced 'the bugs' are unhealthier than much of the current american diet. Is there any evidence for that, beyond "modern food bad + insect disgusting + elites not nice"?

So uh, can anyone defend this bug eating thing without eventually resorting to 'and if it's happening it's a good thing'?

I guess I can try:

If a bunch of finance professionals think there’s alpha in bugburgers, why should I be horrified? Let the markets sort it out. Maybe the third world ends up with cheap protein, maybe it flops.

I don't love the "it isn't happening and if it's happening it's a good thing" attack in most cases. It implies a sense of lying, two-facedness that isn't really present, and serves as an excuse to not argue the point. If the thing is bad, then just argue it's bad! It fits progressive issues because as we swim left, we move from "being gay is a private matter don't infringe on their liberty" to "being gay is AWESOME" - but just noticing this doesn't free you from actually arguing against the latter!

If you're a queer anarchist, then your response to "gay acceptance will lead to trans and queer acceptance" is: "i don't know if it will, but hell yeah if so". If you're a nazi, your response to "Trump will lead to increased acceptance of fascism" may be "i doubt that, but if it does, then #BASED".

For less extreme examples, many right-wingers did say "Roe v Wade won't be overturned, but if it were it'd be good".

The trouble arises when "it isn't happening" is implied to mean "nobody is agitating for it and you are silly to agitate against it."

The reason people are against eating bugs is not because they think bugs are bad for you, it's because they don't want to eat bugs, and are concerned that people with the power to affect the affordability of non-bug sources of protein would like to rig the game so that bugs are all they can afford to eat.

Bringing up the relative health benefits of eating bugs seems like a non-sequitur on your part.

it is silly to agitate against eating bugs, because nobody's going to be forced to eat bugs. also pretty sure bugs won't take off as as a food source generally.

It's significantly more plausible to agitate against forced veganism. That's still dumb, but it's much less so than 'i wont eat the bugs' - vegetarianism/veganism is somewhat popular generally (unlike bug-eating), it's popular specifically among parts of the 'elite liberals' (again, unlike bug-eating), and 'vegan food' is a decent-sized business!

and are concerned that people with the power to affect the affordability of non-bug sources of protein would like to rig the game so that bugs are all they can afford to eat

... you understand the people at the WEF are physical people, right? And they went to good schools, and then good colleges, and many of them read the NYT or the economist? And they tend to believe mainstream centrist or liberal, or sometimes even conservative (more CEOs go R than they do D)! "We're going to make non-bug-food unaffordable for the general population so they have to eat bugs" isn't the kind of thing a progressive, or centrist, believes. It' feels more, if you are them, like something an evil scientist in a cartoon would do.

Back to veganism - something significantly more plausible for a progressive 'elite' is "more of the world should be vegan because it's healthier, it's more sustainable, it's cheaper, it helps alleviate hunger". This makes the proposal out as good for people! And it isn't obviously depriving them. This doesn't translate to 'and we'll ban meat' (which would poll badly atm), but it's much, much more plausible.

"nobody is agitating for it and you are silly to agitate against it."

That's a perfectly coherent statement if you interpret "agitating for" as "wanting to mandate" and "agitate against" as "wanting to forbid" (or "keep forbidden"). Not that I think anyone in this thread wishes to ban the consumption of insects, but in many countries selling insect-derived products as food is currently illegal*, and one can wish to change this fact without wanting to force any diet on anyone.

"It's not happening and it's good" is not contradictory, either, if the two "it"s refer to different things. One can quite plausibly believe, for example, "forcing insect-eating is not happening, and permitted insect-eating is good".

EDIT: * With at least one universal exception being honey, of course.

I mean, defending eating bugs by definition means arguing that eating bugs is good.

Maybe try confectioners glaze shellac as a camel's nose to get people comfortable with the concept.

Cochineal, a red food colouring, is another very common insect-based food additive.

Eating the Australian wood grubs that supposedly taste like scrambled eggs is probably a good deal healthier than a double cheese whopper, with fries and a large coke, true.

On the other hand, Americans aren’t about to start eating wood grubs. If Americans start eating bugs, they’ll be covered in Cheeto dust after being deep fried, and served with ketchup. This does not seem any healthier than fries.

After a bit of googling, one potential guess is that the occasional "Wowee zowee! Insects for human consumption?" efforts are mainly marketing for the actually economically potential use of insects as protein - animal feed.

I don't follow. Why would you need to approve, and promote them for human consumption, in order to feed them to animals? There's already different norms for human food and animal feed.

Because companies need publicity, and "let's use insects as an animal feed" is a throughoutly boring topic unlikely to get any publicity on its own.

It's like politicians lying to their constituents in a way which looks threatening to non-constituents. They may lie all the time, but they're not actually supposed to, and you have a right to take them at their word. It's not as if you can prove whether it's the constitutents or the rest of the world that they're lying to.

If a political group promotes something bad "because they need publicity", I'm entitled to take them at their word.

More comments

I can't imagine this gives you a better bang for your bucks than targeted ads.

but there are thousands of different field-specific conferences businesses spend millions on,

How many can you name that pull as many high-profile people as the WEF?

the WEF having that doesn't prove some hidden conspiracy.

Yeah, it's not hidden...

More seriously, what do you mean by "conspiracy"? Do you think my Eunuch Archive story counts as a conspiracy theory?

Finally I'm not at all convinced 'the bugs' are unhealthier than much of the current american diet.

That's not even the issue, to be honest. They may be, or they may not be. The point is that there's a clear push to promote them despite their massive unpopularity.

How do you think democracy works?

It's supposed to involve some form of public debate before implementing sweeping social or economic reforms. It's all par for the course when bankers write banking regulations, or whatever, but if you have a goal of changing the diet of an entire continent or whatever, whether they like it or not, and to that end you'll be quietly passing regulations nudging them in the desired direction, I'd say you're circumventing democracy. Passing Obamacare was a debacle, but it was more in accordance to the democratic process than what they're doing with the bugs thing.

It's supposed to involve some form of public debate before implementing sweeping social or economic reforms

Allowing the sale of insect-protein-containing food products and scrapping housing regulation allowing more dense but less comfortable housing are not 'sweeping social or economic reforms'. (and the second one isn't even happening! I'd be happy to live in a pod while traveling, or at least have a windowless hotel room).

but if you have a goal of changing the diet of an entire continent or whatever

If there's a 200% tax on meat or something, that's worth complaining about, but that hasn't happened. So far we just have 'advertising for bug-eating'.

Well, before we get into all that can we clear up whether or the elites trying to get us to eat bugs is a rightoid conspiracy theory, or is it happening, and it's a good thing?

I'm happy to debate the relative advantages and disadvantages of bugs, but I can't stand the Narcissist Prayer framework.

“well, market will decide, I guess”. What’s the problem?

Because the market isn't going to decide, not the way most people understand that term. It's going to decide the same way it decided to ban Parler from hosting infrastructure, and that's without going into things like regulations making one cheaper and the other more expensive.

More comments

deleted

"Market will decide" would be fine -- but given elite-man's recent interpretation of 'letting the market decide' whether they want their customers vaccinated or not, it does not seem unreasonable to fear that there will be a thumb on the scales?

Uh, if they are better, then a 'push to promote them despite unpopularity' is good? Was the green revolution bad because it was pushed by the elite? (There may be problems wrt unnatural food, pesticides, etc but that goes along with the population increase) There was a push against cigarettes because they were unhealthy, this isn't exactly malicious. Nobody would care if the WEF were pushing for whole grains, food waste reuse, or food safety in africa (which, indeed, they are).

Yeah, it's not hidden...

You're claiming something is, because we're not taking their stated goals at face value, as if they're hiding something. But hiding what?

Uh, if they are better, then a 'push to promote them despite unpopularity' is good?

No. If you're going to claim that let's end the farce, and just come back to feudalism or whatever.

Was the green revolution bad because it was pushed by the elite?

I'd need to read up on it, I probably could find some bad things about it, but the bigger point is about how it was pushed.

You're claiming something is, because we're not taking their stated goals at face value, as if they're hiding something. But hiding what?

Oh, I'm not claiming anything beyond what they're stating publicly. When I said "not taking them at face value" I meant more in the sense you watch ads. Just because they add a whole lot of padding about how awesome everything is going to be, around the bit about eating bugs, doesn't mean you should believe it, the same way you don't assume those Gillette razors are going to turn you into some sexy hunk.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats