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 -
The deadline set by the Covid Origin Act of 2023 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/619/text) to release names, symptoms, hospital visits, and roles of WIV researchers who had Covid-like symptoms in fall 2019 has come and gone. A Google News search for "Covid Origin Act" results in a single article released over the weekend:
https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/covid-was-not-developed-as-a-bioweapon-dni-finds/
This source is not mainstream. It suggests that the legally mandated report has been released, but puts a spin on the results of the report (Covid not likely an intentional bioweapon) without revealing the full text. Most importantly, it doesn't name any of the names that the Act required. So I went to the website of the Office of the Director for National Intelligence. Crickets. Twitter? There has been a post, but it is about Juneteenth.
Edit: I suppose it is possible that the DNI has made their mandated report to Congress, and that no congresspeople have leaked it yet. In which case one would expect articles in a few hours to days?
As an aside, when I mentioned I was excited about this disclosure to a deeply Blue family member, they suggested I've shifted right. I wonder how the disclosure of Covid origins information became right-coded.
The Left committed early to the "bat soup" theory and declared anybody who doubts it racist, and instituted a censorship blockade of any opposition (or even critical discussion) to this. While they were forced to roll it back a little because dissent went high and wide enough in scientific circles that it wasn't possible any more to block, the initial commitment still weights heavily on the topic, and was not acknowledged as wrong even at "mistakes were made" level, and this colors every critique of this position as attacking the Party Line.
I was always surprised and a little confused that the "bat soup" theory was labelled the non-racist theory.
I will attempt to steelman this distinction.
Zoonotic/'bat soup' hypothesis: "Chinese people are, at the deepest level, no different from us. If we had wet markets selling live bats/pangolins/&c., we would be at the same risk of zoonotic disease outbreaks; if they didn't, they wouldn't."
Lab-leak hypothesis: "The Chinese were doing the same kind of research we were. Are you saying Chinese people can't be trusted with advanced technology?"
If one has these reactions, 'bat soup' seems less racist than 'lab leak', in the same way that Rudyard Kipling might
seemsseem less racist than Alexander Stephens.It's whether these reactions make any sense that is in question. Why does making a slip in complicated research result in "are you saying Chinese people can't be trusted with advanced technology?" but pointing at the widespread popularity of wet markets does not result in "are you saying Chinese people can't be trusted with distributing food?". The latter is literally invoking a racist stereotype against Asians.
Because the latter can be explained as being from differing rates of adoption of universal culture (see comments below on western farmers' markets), whereas the former places the issue in one of the aspects of universal culture which the Chinese have already adopted.
This might raise uncomfortable questions regarding whether all peoples are equally capable of practising universal culture.
The former also links to racist tropes in that the 'lab leak' hypothesis is adjacent to, and often conflated with, a 'deliberate bio-weapon' hypothesis, which pattern-matches to the history of 'yellow peril' rhetoric involving underhanded tactics by Asians.
However, given a slightly different fall of the dice, I could see the 'wet market' hypothesis being the one denounced as racist, and all the (pre-Musk)* bluechecks endorsing the 'lab accident' hypothesis.
(*Or could Mr Musk's purchase of Twitter also be butterflied away...?)
I'm not seeing it. You can just as easily say the former shows they haven't adopted "universal culture" fully yet, or that it was an honest mistake that could have happened anywhere (and did! someone had a list of pan-/epidemics originating from a lab leak), while the latter raises uncomfortable questions about whether all peoples are equally capable of practising universal culture ("they can't even do something basic as running a food market in hygienic conditions").
Yeah, but it only makes sense if you conflate it with the bio-weapon hypothesis. Without it the whole idea falls apart.
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