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 -
In an update on the case of the 5 year old kid in a blue hat taken away by ICE, Judge orders release of 5-year-old detained by immigration authorities in Minnesota.
I was curious what the judge actually wrote, so I delved into the actual court opinion which I found here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172886492/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172886492.9.0_3.pdf . And it seems this judge clowned himself with the most insane deranged court opinion I've ever seen. I've seen some performative court opinions, but I think this one takes the cake with gems like:
Interestingly, the court opinion makes exactly 0 legal arguments to support its decision.
I'm increasingly disappointed that activist judges aren't even pretending to be arbiters of the law, but are just doing whatever they want. Of course you expect an enemy judge to make his decision and figure out the justification later, but you expect them to at least think backwards and figure out some kind of fig leaf of legalese to claim that he actually believe that is the law. Instead this judge makes a mockery of the process. And of course for whatever reason, federal judges have never been punished for not doing their jobs.
At least the kayfabe of pretending we live in a country with laws I think is critical for legitimacy. At least for now the court of appeals can write a quick "your a retard" order on Monday, but even so it's a bad look.
For a neutral-ish perspective on the court opinion, try giving an AI the court opinion and asking what it thinks.
PS: AI told me that that the same judge is a known joker and is known for writing this punny though legally sound opinion here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/harvard_pdf/8725121.pdf
To me this, just proves that the Trump admin has (accidentally?) struck a small vein strategic gold. Apparently directly antagonizing the left causes a small but significant fraction of their institutionally embedded partisans to lose control and let their masks slip. This seems like evidence in favor of the efficacy of further accelerationism and direct antagonism from the right. Previously, it was believed by many on the right that long-march leftists were simply too clever, disciplined, and coordinated to challenge directly. Instead, the only option was to "exit" or to go full Benedict Option. But no longer. It must be frustrating for the more self-possessed and strategically-minded leftist partisans who are quietly manipulating procedural outcomes in a plausibly deniable way. Their grandstanding compatriots are giving away the game.
Too bad for Trump that it doesn't matter. Similarly to when 4chan tricked the left into thinking the OK sign was a racist thing... it didn't knock the left out of power, it just mean now you could get canceled for the OK sign.
Just as an example, Technology Connections (calm, nice, midwest technology YouTuber) just went absolutely brain numbingly ballistic after an incredible video on renewables, nullifying all the work.
I can totally imagine a pro fossil fuel person watching the video, changing their mind, watching the coda about politics, and then doubling down...
I wish supposedly objective people would stop doing this.
That was a terrible video; he starts by talking about the moral superiority of midwesterners. And then he goes to silliness, like suggesting that buying half a tanker truck of gas over 15 years is unreasonable. Honestly, I expected it to be a whole tanker truck, so I guess I wasn't off by that much. But that's wrapped within the sillier thing -- he's banging on about how the fuel can only be used once.... but that's true of any energy. He complains that pointing this out is a "gotcha", but it's just a response to his own "gotcha" about fuel being single use. He's on somewhat more solid ground when instead talking about economics, but then the details matter and he just glosses right over the "what about nighttime" issue. He also then goes and compares the price by the palletload of solar panels to the retail price of gasoline (rather than considering the delivered price of electricity, including batteries -- unless he's ONLY going to use his car at night, so he can charge during the day).
"There's a 27 Megawatt solar farm build in DePue, Illinois. Why is that?" Answer: subsidies, in the form of selling
indulgencesRenewable Energy Certificates.And then in the rant section, after he's constructed this whole case that solar either already does or soon will make economic sense, he complains about Republicans taking away subsidies. Bitch, please... do you not believe your own case?
More options
Context Copy link
I think the most confusing part of this video was dumping on Starlink. Legacy telecoms don't want to provide Internet to Assfuck, Minnesota? We can just launch satellites and beam down high bandwidth Internet to any point on the globe between the Arctic and antarctic circles? Everything is working as intended, the market provides. What is the problem?
But it's ridiculously impractical and requires continual expensive maintenance by chuds (like Musk); the existing technology is good enough or even ideal in certain circumstances, so we should just stick with that.
You know, kind of like electric cars.
If only there were a video describing this phenomenon. Here's one that springs to mind.
The frustrating part is that he's proven he knows better than to do this. (And yes, this naturally applies to his pet social issues too.)
It's a good thing those cell towers erect themselves!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And yet he's still friends with the Aging Wheels guy, who's red tribe-coded as fuck, quirky hobby aside.
Is the Aging Wheels guy red coded? I mean, he's got the homesteading stuff going on, but I never got that impression. He loves quirky european cars, electric cars, etc...
Well, he owns land in the middle of nowhere (grew up there as far as I understand), has several trucks and a bunch of farm animals. Not exactly a blue stereotype.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would seriously guess not anymore.
A lot of Blue's had their brain break in the last few weeks - it's even being reported by mainstream media (Mark Halperin)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Technology Connections has always reminded me of another nice, friendly, but left-wing technology youtuber, CathodeRayDude. He's a little quirkier than Technology Connections and covers more old PC stuff, but he has the very similar vibe of "geeky leftist dork who believes he is enlightened by his intelligence."
CRD has a very droll sense of humor and he's fun to watch, but he definitely has a nasty habit of going on unnecessary political tangents where he insults the right, especially about trans issues because his partner is transgender. But mostly he complains about capitalism and how all jobs are awful with a kind of antiwork energy, which kind of makes my eyebrow raise, because I feel like if he weren't dating a transgender person or weren't from Oregon, he'd be a self-employment bro talking about how you've got to make your own money away from the corporate machine, small businesses baby! kind of guy.
What I don't understand is why people with this personality -- which is often skeptical, critical, capable of immense analysis of technological and engineering tradeoffs -- are often unable to see that there are elements in politics where different policies have different tradeoffs for different people. Energy policy is one of the clearest ones, where its obvious why Californians with living memory of smog and pollution, and Oklahomans and Texans and West Virginians, would have different assumptions about the value of burning fossil fuels for energy.
There's been recent, massive, and overwhelming change to see conceding any genuine motivation for the political enemy as not merely misguided or wrong, but active and malicious betrayal. The Blue Tribe's further down that slope, but the Red Tribe isn't exactly slow at it, either.
((for an extreme example, I'm trying to write up the Varian Fox verdict, and it's a mess because the only people covering it are the ones that are absolutely uninterested in the pro-trans viewpoint, while the pro-trans people are largely unaware it happened.))
I don't know the cause. It's tempting to point at the growth of 'animus' as a Kennedy-school legal theory, or social media filtering, or increased polarization, or the takeover of HR-focused careers, or just external pressures making being the knee in search of careerism.
But it's bad, and it's getting worse, rapidly. There's always been a little on the edges, where knowing enough about guns set you outside of the acceptable discussion window with gun control advocates, even when that knowledge was necessary to make the very laws gun control advocates wanted. Now, it's hard to think of a culture war fight were that isn't the norm.
Perhaps worse, even for those of us autistic enough to be skeptical and analytic, where do you think the information's going to come from? A Blue Triber that goes looking up some Red Tribe values, you're going to be lucky if the best you find just looks like an overt scam site; more likely you'll get to something like thefp or fox news that 'everyone knows' isn't even a good model of what Red Tribers think, and completely disconnected from reality. And Red Tribers going to wikipedia can honestly say the same thing. What's left? Talk to your Other Tribe friends?
More options
Context Copy link
As someone who is old enough to remember how tech people used to be (and is more or less one of them), this change makes zero sense to me.
IMAO, this sort of thing is where, "the past is a different country," saying gets its teeth. Again, IMAO and all that, but the barriers to tech were higher and different, the PMC hadn't yet metastasized, kids could still fail out of public schools, colleges were not yet degree factories with extra steps, TFR decline wasn't quite a Thing beyond the Doomers, the American monoculture had yet to be fractured by the internet, Western ideology seemed ascendant in the larger world, Social Media had not yet been unleashed upon the world, etc. etc. etc.
Somewhere in my head there lies an ill-formed effortpost on these themes. If I can keep myself from getting too turgid in my prose, I may even write it and perhaps post it.
More options
Context Copy link
The progressive tech weirdos purged all the other tech weirdos who didn't keep their head down, so the only ones you'll hear from are the progressives.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
RIP, the entire video was totally reasonable until he launched into an unhinged rant about how republicans are evil
More options
Context Copy link
As a long time watcher and patreon supporter of his, I'm afraid to watch that video.
It was obvious for years he was chafing at the thought of not being able to discuss politics without risking a large portion of his viewership, but it seems the restraints are gone now.
Yeah, honestly one of the less surprising crashouts I've seen to the ICE situation. I like his stuff, but he's always strongly given off that very particular nerd vibe I became super well aquatinted with in college, of the intelligent guy who bases his identity on being the "smartest guy in the room", and in so fully embodies the Freddie deBoer "politics is obviously solved" aspect of wokeness.
More options
Context Copy link
I doubt that his viewership is going to care about this.
More options
Context Copy link
It was completely and disappointingly unhinged, every stereotype of disgruntled leftists, 0-100, etc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I watched some of that reasonable video, and my only conclusion was, this seems to be an example of two films on the same screen.
He introduces oil energy by describing some uses, but underplays that importance (nearly all modern wealth is built upon the super high energy return provided by fossil fuels). When that high energy return stops any time, we have to get much much poorer.
Isn't the whole point of the video that we won't get much poorer if we switch to renewables?
Depends on which "we" you're talking about.
"We" meaning urban white-collar folks in places like southern California, who already own EVs with high quality roads and charging infrastructure? Yeah, they can probably make it work, and they'll see a nice benefit from less air pollution.
But for people in rural areas, small islands, or especially in 3rd world countries? That's going to be rough. It's not just a matter of producing enough energy, it's getting it where you need it. A lot of these people have no power grid (or a highly unreliable one), no engineers that can maintain an EV, and no one coming to help them if they suffer rough weather or an extended blackout. For that, the ability to store up "energy on demand" in a simple can of gas or propane tank, is absolutely necessary. The heat that it generates is also just as important as the electricity.
Ironically, a lot of these people are also early adaptors of solar, since it works well in a small off-grid capacity. You can use a solar panel to charge lights, computers, cell phones, etc during the day, then at night you either go to sleep or burn some propane when you need to. They can also use a simple EV for short range trips that they can charge from home, while also using gas for longer trips. It's a very practical solution to save money and get more independance while still having that oil when they really need it. But forcing these people to go "100% renewables, 0 fossil fuels" would be impossible, and lead to a lot of resistance from some of the best solar advocates.
More options
Context Copy link
Could be, but it's false.
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