site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   28027 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 7, 2024

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I've heard an entirely sincere theory that a major underlying cause of the opposition to nuclear power in the public is that, when people think of nuclear power plants, their brain immediately goes to Homer Simpson (idiotic, careless, buffoonish, lazy and a habitual drunkard) and Charles Montgomery Burns (cost-cutting, shamelessly corrupt, bottomlessly greedy and unabashedly malevolent). Coupled with the fact that there are, to my knowledge, no well-known heroic fictional characters who work in the nuclear power industry. I honestly think it's a significant contributing factor at a minimum.

Co-creator Sam Simon has even personally apologised for how the show depicted the nuclear power industry.

I don’t think that makes much sense. Simpson’s didn’t help that image, but there are a lot of big scary images of nuclear weapons being used, scare propaganda about the aftermath of nuclear war, which certainly don’t help the public image of nuclear power. Add in a few disasters (Fukushima, Chernobyl, and 3-mile Island) and as a power source it has an image problem that long predates Homer Simpson.

They should have moved Homer around. Show him working at a Savings & Loan, then a dot-com company, then a defence contractor, then FEMA, then an investment bank, then a cryptocurrency-company....

And it would have made perfect sense, given that it's already a running joke that Homer has had dozens of jobs in the course of the series. They should have moved him to a new "permanent" job every couple of seasons.

A majority of Americans support nuclear power, and the support has been rising while The Simpsons has been on air.

Perhaps, but the Simpsons started not too long after the lowest point of nuclear's public image (Chernobyl), so it's likely the only direction it could take was up from there, and I would think it possible that support for nuclear should have risen higher and faster if it was not for The Simpsons.

Point taken. Ad hoc epicycle: the proportion of Americans who oppose nuclear energy is directly proportional to The Simpsons's ratings, and both have declined steeply in recent decades. Per your chart, the ratio of Americans who support:oppose nuclear power has been more or less constant since about 2010, shortly after the last time The Simpsons truly defined the zeitgeist (the release of The Simpsons Movie in 2007).

Still, as far as I can see The Simpsons continues to have a formidable chokehold in the American meme culture, probably the single most memetic show ever insofar as Twitter/Facebook, at least, seem to be concerned (of course these would not capture the current youth trends).

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats