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 -
(I don't vape, or like the smell of others vaping.)
The extent to which the FDA has regulated vapes, not just based on questionable evidence but often in glorified rug pulls, has been especially disappointing. And the extent it saw people drop their proclaimed principles like a hot coal was a wake-up call, in the same way that a lot of lockdown proposals were probably a wake-up call for COVID minimalists. I didn't expect the "my body my rights" people to actually mean that, given that the ACA-era debates were filled with people who thought federal tinkering with food was a-ok, but the marijuana advocates that found nicotine beyond the pale were just the tip of the iceberg.
The most charitable analysis I've seen suggests that the anti-tobacco advocates see this as another front in a war to completely eliminate any tobacco or nicotine use, probably augmented by low trust in any research (and, tbf, a lot of scientific research is a) garbage and/or b) funded by Bad Guys, including a lot of past nicotine research). I don't want to suggest that they see this as solely a Team Vs. Team matter, because it's not really tribalism in the conventional sense, but it is about the groups, and that can make sense.
But then the very-tobacco-like stuff -- often sold by Big Tobacco -- is the only thing that gets through, followed by a black or gray market in stuff that's at best unregulated and much more often chemically curious, and I'm back to unimpressed: even if this is a tactic, we're back to 'burn the people you're claiming to defend on pyre for the cause' level.
(I prefer the smell of vaping to cigarettes given it's vaguely fruit-like)
I heard a conspiracy theory that a bunch of states had made a considerable investments in cigarette tax revenue, that there was some kind of deal where states had dealt with their pension liabilities by allocating tobacco tax revenue there. If cigarettes lost market share to products that couldn't reasonably be so heavily taxed, that would be a loss of revenue. So the 'very-tobacco-like stuff' is a source of revenue and encouraged, even as it's restricted. I can't find any evidence to back this up though.
If we're putting our tinfoil hats on, I've been suspecting that all the anti-vaping PSAs and advertising from the past few years may have had quite a bit of help from Big Tobacco.
This is a conspiracy theory I won’t believe because vaping products are, if you trace it back, often produced by big tobacco.
Ah, but what if they’re trying to make it verboten to capture the youth?
Literally can’t go tits up
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Indian tobacco lobbyists managed to get vapes banned in the country, so I think assuming a similar dynamic in the States wouldn't be off the mark. As always, follow the incentives.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I remember it got even weirder with states selling off their in-perpetuity settlements to wall street for cash now through various bonds. An old propublica article from 2014. You'll find various stories about refinancing and bailing out of various state/municipal tobacco payment bonds throughout the years in local papers or on the wires.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link