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 think this is a useful kind of analysis, even if the survey wasn't online. It's still asking vague questions that different groups of people will take 10 seconds to answer and interpret in very different ways, and treating them like obvious truth. From this pdf, we find ... 68% of elite ivy league graduates support banning private air conditioning and non-essential travel to fight climate change? I just do not believe that, there's clearly something wrong with the poll. Even if there weren't, consider: For the 'freedom' vs 'government control' question, they plausibly just read it as "do you support conservative-coded views or liberal-coded views" and answered the one that was more liberal. And, you know, that's not an incorrect interpretation of the poll - you don't ask questions like "Does the united states provide too much individual freedom, too much government control, or both?" if you're trying to discern truth, the framing of that is heavily conservative, "government control" one side of a Russell conguation and "individual freedom" is on the other side of one. 90% (!) of ivy league graduate elites support "strict" rationing of "gas, meat, and electricity", when they probably just support carbon taxes in practice.
The whole presentation, along with the report, is on the discourse level of a political TV ad.
... Okay, this just isn't true. Come on. "who goes and says ‘I would rather cheat than lose an election’ on a poll" - yes! that is a great question! You noticed something was off, which is good, and then somehow used that to infer that outgroup = bad. I know a fair number of "politically-obsessed" "elites", and even in private they don't talk like that at all! The answer is just "people who are lying or trolling on the poll".
Now, all that aside, the "elite" do have a number of beliefs that are bad and are harming themselves and others by implementing them. But bad analysis doesn't get one any closer to fixing that.
i think this is a reasonable possibility. i've heard it claimed there is a strong social desirability bias when answering surveys and the 'correct' thing to do is to fight climate change. just because they answered positively in a survey doesn't mean they would actually support the policies if it came to a vote. the cheating question is very weird and I suspect somehow they worded the question without explicitly saying cheating and claimed they question meant cheating in their summary.
More options
Context Copy link
I just do not believe that XX% of elite ivy league graduates wanted me to be taken to a gulag, or, preferably, just die, because I didn't get vaccinated. They are my peers. They are my friends. They are my neighbors. And yet....
More options
Context Copy link
Good find on that PDF, I clearly didn't spend enough time (any time) looking for extra information, I assumed it was kept for those paying for the research.
Elites would surely distinguish between carbon taxes and 'strict rationing' though. Rationing isn't a market mechanism like taxes or an emissions trading scheme. The polling could be distorted in various ways but I don't see anyway to misinterpret that question.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link