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 -
Not sure how true it is, but it's said that induction stoves screw with pacemakers. If true, that would make them unfit for universally mandated use.
Apart from the policy being misguided in the first place. What's the justification?
OK, pacemakers are the only good argument against the ban I've seen so far. The only research paper that I can find is this one from 2006:
I don't know what that means TBH.
Having exhausted the scientific literature, I tried the next best thing: Reddit. There are anecdotal reports from people with pacemakers cooking with induction and people with pacemakers who were told by their doctors not to cook with induction. No reports from people with pacemakers who tried cooking with induction and died.
Edit: And what about people who have embedded metal fragments that can't be removed? I guess my ban isn't a very good idea after all.
An induction stove can affect some pacemakers if someone is COMPLETELY up against the stove and the pot is not covering the pad completely. Touching the pot creates a circuit (a long touch), and the pace maker will switch modes.
Interesting share.
More options
Context Copy link
A very literal example of survivorship bias.
More options
Context Copy link
No, that's not how this works. It's a free country. I don't need to make any argument against banning gas or electric stoves, whomever wishes to ban them needs to make an argument for it. And the bar is very high. Frankly, no supposed harm of stoves is likely to convince me that adults shouldn't be able to choose what they do or don't want to cook with.
See my other comment for why gas and conventional electric are bad.
What about the children who live in the same household? Indeed, children are the ones most affected by pollution from gas stoves.
If it's not clear, I was actually mostly joking when I suggested banning gas and conventional electric stoves. Did anyone take my claim that using conventional electric stoves is "basically a human rights violation" seriously? I was slightly in favour but I didn't really care. A complete ban is well beyond the Overton window anyway. I have now changed my mind and am slightly against it unless it can be demonstrated that they are 100% safe for people with pacemakers (and metal fragments!). Presumably this question will come up if a ban becomes remotely plausible. If it is a real danger, politicians will want to avoid being responsible for cooking someone's grandpa.
You have to be joking about that pollution thing right? Gas stoves burn almost completely efficiently meaning they produce CO2 and water almost exclusively. The char on your steak generates hundreds of more times indoor pollution in 2 minutes than just letting the stove burn all day would.
More options
Context Copy link
What about the possible bad ideas the parents could instills in their children? Activists can do information campaigns, individuals can shame people but at some point we're just going to have to let people parent and not try to get the state to it for them.
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