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 -
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.
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.
This, and the bit about pods just sounds like "it's not happening, and if it's happening it's a good thing".
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:
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":
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?:
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.
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?
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.
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?)
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"?
So uh, can anyone defend this bug eating thing without eventually resorting to 'and if it's happening it's a good thing'?
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!
... 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.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link