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 -
How many can you name that pull as many high-profile people as the WEF?
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?
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.
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.
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).
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'.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
The thing I appreciate about the WEF is that it's an old fashioned hierarchical organization. None of this distributed Motte and Bailey nonsense. If bugs are promoted through Novel Food / Food 2030, and these policies are developed at the WEF, and Schwab is chairman of the WEF, then the buck stops with him.
Like I was trying to explain, that's not the issue. People aren't taking an issue with it being advocated for, they're taking an issue with the decision being made for them behind their back.
More options
Context Copy link
deleted
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"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?
More options
Context Copy link
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).
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?
No. If you're going to claim that let's end the farce, and just come back to feudalism or whatever.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link