site banner

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This prediction, a dull mainstay of science fiction from the 1950s onwards, was misinterpreted by some social media manager for the WEF as a purely optimistic forecast, and then inserted into the Facebook video.

I have upvoted / liked / thumbs up my share of WEF memes to the effect, "doesn't stakeholder capitalism sound quite much like dystopia" but not the overt conspiracy stuff. Call it mildly conspiratorial anti-WEF position and a form of protest.

hcnzosdu in a sibling thread argues otherwise, but I always assumed your take was correct: it was a message misinterpreted by some (incompetent / daft) social media manager for the WEF. Which was also the part I find troubling: that the WEF is (1) an important organization, (2) large enough to employ social media managers whose messages are seen by non-insignificant amount of people (3) the said managers think such visions are optimistic and utopian. It epitomizes the values and vision of those aligned with the WEF: I disagree with those values and vision.

I for one never believed the WEF is a dark Illuminati presided by Dark Lord Schwab who possesses detailed, itemized, decade-spanning agenda "how to take over the world". Nevertheless, it is not an insignificant thing either: many politicians go there, network which each other, discuss and share ideas ... and afterwards, those politicians tend to propose policy and legislation that is often more aligned with the WEF values than not. Some of those politicians have continue to have nice, elite careers if they lose elections and retire from political life. The WEF is not a conspiracy in the sense it is an instrumental coordinating nucleus, a critical piece of infrastructure without which nothing would exist. If Davos didn't exist, there would be other conferences and other networking opportunities that could be made appear equally sinister or equally banal and boring. Before the WEF, I recall the Bilderberg meeting was the famous conference that attracted attention of a conspiratorial mind. Everyone who attends such events has their boring informal professional networks which are probably much more important to each individual. However, the WEF exists.

I don't think it is a conspiracy theory to think conferences like the World Economic Forum have similar value as any other networking events and conferences attached to an agenda / set of ideas (I suppose you could call it a memeplex). Take NIPS/NeurIPS. It would be very weird to argue that NIPS is totally irrelevant or not worth looking at, especially would have been when it was the 2010s, it was still called NIPS, and neural networks were becoming an superbly interesting thing (again). It would be silly to claim that the NIPS Organizing Committee was a conspiratorial cabal with a project to install particular AI algorithm paradigm. But it was founded with the intention that the scientists interested in neural information processing systems could meet each other, share valuable ideas and knowledge, and have some prestigious fun (which may be more important than it sounds). All those people going to same place and talking to each other and having not-bad-time together is important: humans are social animals, it is how people organize themselves, and organized effort is more effective than one without organization.

I do think it makes sense to note that the WEF is an organization important enough to attract the members of "elite class" (point 1 and bit of 2) and it posts social media PR (Facebook posts, Instagram stories) about owning nothing, substituting meat with vegan products, the Great Reset like they are the most cheerful thing ever (points 2 to 3).

Speaking of the Great Reset, it sounds a bit more ambitious project / campaign / attempt to seed a memeplex (?) than a simple tax reform. Archival link

The Great Reset agenda would have three main components. The first would steer the market toward fairer outcomes. To this end, governments should improve coordination (for example, in tax, regulatory, and fiscal policy), upgrade trade arrangements, and create the conditions for a “stakeholder economy.” At a time of diminishing tax bases and soaring public debt, governments have a powerful incentive to pursue such action.

Moreover, governments should implement long-overdue reforms that promote more equitable outcomes. Depending on the country, these may include changes to wealth taxes, the withdrawal of fossil-fuel subsidies, and new rules governing intellectual property, trade, and competition.

The second component of a Great Reset agenda would ensure that investments advance shared goals, such as equality and sustainability. Here, the large-scale spending programs that many governments are implementing represent a major opportunity for progress. The European Commission, for one, has unveiled plans for a €750 billion ($826 billion) recovery fund. The US, China, and Japan also have ambitious economic-stimulus plans.

Rather than using these funds, as well as investments from private entities and pension funds, to fill cracks in the old system, we should use them to create a new one that is more resilient, equitable, and sustainable in the long run. This means, for example, building “green” urban infrastructure and creating incentives for industries to improve their track record on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics.

The third and final priority of a Great Reset agenda is to harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to support the public good, especially by addressing health and social challenges. During the COVID-19 crisis, companies, universities, and others have joined forces to develop diagnostics, therapeutics, and possible vaccines; establish testing centers; create mechanisms for tracing infections; and deliver telemedicine. Imagine what could be possible if similar concerted efforts were made in every sector.

That is much more than a global minimum corporation tax. In fact, it is not explicitly mentioned at all, taxes are a throwaway line! However, most of the index funds I had invested to have turned to applying ESG indexes. Are ESG screened indexes dystopian? Not so sure, but some stakeholder capitalist somewhere has their thumb on the scales in a different place than previously.

The World Economic Forum is a conference but also a vision. it is a thing worth paying attention to and a thing one can disagree with. How one does disagree with a vision on the internet? One can write long posts arguing against it in obscure internet forum. But if one wants to be efficient and have impact, one should share funny memes against the WEF and the vision it represents.

I am genuinely unsure if the overtly conspiratorial stuff helps or not. (I have not met genuine conspiracy theorists in non-internet social sphere. I have had some success getting reactions like "WEF is a bit weird/tacky".)

Schwab also wrote a book, titled 'The Fourth Industrial Revolution', a poorly written text that says little and which argues for what is effectively globalized neoliberal "stakeholder capitalism".

I would like to draw a comparison to the standard multinational corporate bullshit jargon. This genre of writing should be familiar to most people (think of HR and PR departments of large Western companies and other organizations). Collections of banal, unsophisticated, trivial statements. Many a corporate document is like Schwab's book, "a poorly written text that says little." Generally co-workers will agree the jargon is often silly and sometimes difficult to take seriously. Nevertheless, such jargon-laden, poorly written documents are how the generic Western corporation function, and thus they have tremendous effect in yearly performance reviews, project launches, funding decisions, real stuff in the real world. Poorly written text that says little can be important.

Sure, the Communist Manifesto had an evocative opening and said much (not all of it good nor true), but our age is less romantic.

EDIT. This comment here puts it better than me.