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 closest to that being true I can think of is GreenPeace, but they are more motivated by oil money and hippie bullshit about anti-nuclear.
I think “environmentalists” being anti nuclear is a perfect example of what OP is talking about.
They’re anti nuclear because that would actually fix the problem, and remove their source of meaning.
I think they're anti-nuclear largely for historical reasons -- the slur about "green on the outside and red on the inside" is accurate, and the Soviet Union wanted them to oppose nuclear.
The biggest reason for the anti-nuclear stance was that the environmental movement had strong roots in the previous pacifist movements (in some ways supplanting them) and their anti-nuclear-weapons campaigsn, and pacifist movements and fear of nuclear weapons were going to be strong in Cold-War-era Europe whether the Soviets supported them or not. (The Soviets not as much supported pacifist movements by themselves as tried to take over and utilize them with varying rates of success, and the New Left milieu that formed the basis for environmentalism, pacifism and similar causes ended up also fueling the dissident movements and internal Communist party reformist tendencies that played a large part in bringing the people's republics down.)
Another big thing was simply that early environmentalist movements, going by the modes I talked about here, were strongly "bodily purity" movements with global warming initially playing no part or only a small part in their agenda, and it's only later that the bodily purity thing (with obvious connections to fear of radiation etc.) was supplanted by climate-change-oriented environmentalism. This supplanting can be seen in how younger parts of the environmental movement are now belatedly moving to a more pro-nuclear position, visible for years in Finland and also now in other parts, evinced by things like this campaign.
I think another explanation is that the environmental movement includes a lot of people who are ideologically opposed to energy use and a lot of modern technology. Environmental measures that tell people to cut down on their energy usage are what they want. Environmental measures which relieve the need to cut down on energy are not what they want, and that's what promoting nuclear power to help global warming does.
Currently the most common anti-nuclear movement around here is that nuclear is actually not all that efficient in generating energy (due to building costs and the delayed construction of OL3 plant etc.) and that renewables are actually more efficient (or just about to become so), are ongoing a boom etc.
Much of current environmentalist agenda (electric cars etc.) is absolutely based on the continuation and even extension of energy use.
Whether this is a valid argument or not depends greatly on the truth value of that proposition, and the extent to which (to whatever extent it's true) it's true because of the actions of the enviromental movement.
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