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.

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.