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 am admittedly in a bit of a filter bubble with regard to this, but all of the irl men I can discuss politics with agree that nuclear is a very attractive solution to the problem. On both sides of the aisle.
The irl women I have broached the subject with, however... /images/17223237173445024.webp
Which kinda goes back to the point OP raised.
Just to nitpick, this mainly applies to countries which still utilize coal and oil for such purposes to a large degree. And as far as I know, all of them are outside the West anyway and are investing more and more into nuclear energy, with the sad and pathetic exception of Germany.
Australia still uses tons of coal and oil (I seem to recall we have the highest greenhouse emissions per capita), and despite having lolhuge uranium reserves NIMBY and hippies have entirely stopped nuclear power so far.
Our federal opposition leader is actually running on a platform of "let's actually do nuclear", although it's questionable whether he can actually get plants built due to state bans.
More options
Context Copy link
Burning natural gas produces a great deal of CO2-equivalent. If you believe the climate change people and take leaks into account, more than coal.
But dams kill fish, wind kills birds (and offshore wind kills marine mammals though that's more a Republican thing), large-scale solar ruins the pristine desert environment, nuclear glows, and nobody likes transmission lines (and also cute endangered species can't cross the corridors), so what the environmentalists are pushing for is shivering in the dark. They'll agree with various alternative energy proposals until someone figures out a way of making them practical, at which point they'll be against.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's not like the case for nuclear is so cut-and-dry that men being much more in favour can just be interpreted as evidence for "men more reasonable, women more crazy" without justification. There are complex arguments for and against that ultimately reduce to a lot of boring number crunching; since it's hardly ever the case that large swathes of the population have crunched the numbers, consider the possibility that men like nuclear more and women like it less due to some evopsych coincidence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link