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.
As an environmentalist I can confidently state that this isn't the case. There are largely two motivating reasons behind being anti-nuclear, specifically
1: Nuclear waste is a serious problem and preventing it from leaking out into the environment on a long enough timescale is extremely difficult. This doesn't apply to some reactor designs, but those run into problem number 2.
2: Nuclear power doesn't actually generate electricity profitably enough to matter. There isn't a single nuclear power plant reliably generating both electricity and profits without extensive government subsidies anywhere in the world. Keeping some around is worthwhile because they're incredibly useful for research and generating exotic isotopes for medical purposes, but even then they just can't carry their weight when they have to deal with market forces. Some people say that environmentalist pressure is behind this, but I really don't think environmentalists are that successful, and this approach also fails to explain why countries like Saudi Arabia which have zero need to cater to environmentalists have invested in this kind of technology. Russia, Iran, China - all of these places have both significant reasons to pursue power-generation technology that doesn't require extensive fossil fuel imports, along with a total disregard for anglosphere environmentalists and yet they simply do not do so.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link