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 -
Are food allergies another aspect of the culture war? I was reading Reddit and a person was feeding 100 people and someone mentioned to make sure you have all the allergies/food restrictions covered. Being honest I’ve never met anyone with a food restriction I can think of except a lot of brown friends who won’t eat sausage but also have no problem with alcohol.
Ancient religions had a lot of restrictions, now Im borrowing this from elsewhere that the rise of food restrictions is just the same thing as ancients banning certain foods as holy acts. I’ve long argued that the culture wars are less of a culture war and more of a religious war and dietary restrictions are just a modern form of Jews and Muslims banning pork/shellfish etc and Catholics not eating meat on fridays. All religions seem to have focuses on eating and sexual rituals.
I know mental illness has far higher rates amongst lefties. My guess is dietary restrictions and food allergies are much higher in lefties and if your not in that religion it’s something you never think of.
Just to be clear, are you suggesting - with very little to support it - that food allergies are either fake or psychosomatic?
Yes. Not like the things peanuts where you get hives and can die. But gluten and a lot of the others yes.
I am a diagnosed Coeliac (they shoved a metal thing down my throat to acquire a piece of my colon to diagnose it). If I eat sufficient quantities of gluten (where sufficient is measured in milligrams), I get severe stomach issues and general major fatigue for ~1 week. So I feel quite confident stating it is a real allergy, even if it would probably take years/decades to kill me if I ate gluten every day.
On a broader note, "not eating gluten" did become something of a health fad a few years back, and interest in gluten-free products skyrocketed. I strongly doubt all, or even most of the people who went with the fad are Coeliacs. But potentially some are. I'm also unsure how to feel about it: In many respects I benefited from a large expansion of goods availability (more than 2 shapes of pasta? LUXURY!), even if a decent amount of it is 'vegan-superfood-seeds-organic' sludge that doesn't interest me. But I also fear that at some point the fad will go in the other direction, and I will be required to forcefully explain that it's a real disease every time I go to a restaurant and politely ask them to inform me if there's anything on the menu I can eat. Or worse, the waiter will nod, ignore my information request (did you know people love to put flour in all sorts of random things? It's true!) and I'll get sick.
But back to these people who do not eat gluten, or other products, without any kind of diagnosis. Medicine is hard. Getting something minor officially diagnosed would require a lot of effort and free time / money to badger doctors into giving you tests. So maybe every time you eat paprika you get a little bit gassy. Or if you eat certain nuts the back of your throat itches a bit. Maybe you think parmesan tastes like vomit. Each of these is an uncomfortable physical sensation if you eat the related foodstuff, but probably not enough that you'd ask a doctor about it. You'll still have a decently strong preference to not eat that food. And I'd argue that it's a legitimate preference, regardless of if you think it tastes bad or it makes your throat itch.
But where we as a society draw the line regarding feeding obligations? Currently it seems he consensus is that if you think something tastes bad, that's mostly your problem, at least when it comes to feeding more than a few people. And if something makes you seriously ill, to the point where you do have a diagnosis for a food allergy, then it's up to the people managing the event to accommodate you (or rescind the invitation? But I think that would be seen as impolite). Some people seem to draw the line a bit differently. Vegetarianism strikes me as a preference, but you're usually expected to accommodate it anyway, and pretty much all restaurants/large events seem to have vegetarian options. Possibly due to some moral authority, potentially just because it's popular.
There might very well be a liberal/conservative divide here, where cons are more likely to "shut up and suffer" for the sake of not being a bother and the sense of community from eating the food as everyone else, while libs are more individualistic and will make a fuss, I have no data either way. But dismissing someone's food preferences as fake strikes me as absurd, regardless of 'slight itch' or 'bad taste', it's unpleasant physical sensations either way.
I think vegetarian options are so common because it’s anticipated to accommodate a variety of dietary restrictions, including religious meat taboos, more than out of strong concern for vegetarians themselves.
More options
Context Copy link
Same with milk once you start paying attention to it.
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