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 -
It has always confused me why conservatives aren't the party of environmentalists and climate conservation. It's literally an attempt to prevent change. I can easily imagine a world where progressives are trying to build an economic utopia of plenty in order to make cheap goods for the poor, while the conservatives rail against the evil bureaucrats for destroying our god-given nature just to make numbers on a spreadsheet go up. And blaming foreigners for having terrible pollution and recycling policies (which they do).
You occasionally see this point trotted out as a counterpoint to liberal climate change policies (our country barely contributes to climate change, look at China's emissions), but always as a gotcha to shut down interventions, not because they actually care about China destroying the environment. It's weird. I don't understand why we live in the world we live in other than "left = government intervention" I guess. But the right usually supports government intervention if it's to prevent something they consider evil, and I would expect the destruction of nature to count.
Because, "environmentalism" and "climate conservation" in this context isn't actually about the climate or environment. It's a Trojan horse for left-wing academics to smuggle in thier prefered social-engineering schemes.
Look at which side is more supportive of things like, fish and game regulations, national parks, and nuclear power, and suddenly the valance shifts.
More options
Context Copy link
Conservatives are for more direct measures like nuclear and geoengineering (see Texas, the state with the most green energy), while liberals prefer de-growth, anti-natalism and other related things. So it’s just the fixes that differ, not the concern really (although initially this was the case)
One thing I’ve always found strange is liberals want open borders despite the fact this would be a disaster for climate change, but want you to have fewer kids…? I guess I wouldn’t care about the glaring inconsistency if they didn’t have such apocalyptic rhetoric, but I guess that’s all it is, rhetoric…
It writes itself. Immigration is a way to preserve privilege (depress wages, abuse the public purse, only rich can afford security, shrink middle class), that’s why they do it.
Environmentalism is similar, where the only people allowed to make money are entrenched interests (and now you know why they hate the only relevant electric car company).
More options
Context Copy link
Texas only leads renewables because it’s a profitable use of their land IMO.
Texas leads renewables because anyone can build anything as long as they don't demand state funding, and a) the feds are happy to foot the bill for renewables instead and b) a huge percentage of Texas' power is recent compared to the national average. If the Texas legislature or Greg Abbott could wave a magic wand which didn't cost any money and replace all their solar with gas, they would do it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because the model you have is wrong. The bit about conservatism being optimized for catastrophe while liberal values are optimized for peace and plenty is wrong. And the part about conservatives being against change is wrong; what they're against is large and fast (radical) change. Conservatives went right along or were at the forefront of a lot of conservation (name not a coincidence) efforts. When environmentalism became taking a constructed nature's side in the struggle of man v. environment, conservatives got right off.
But in practice I almost never hear conservatives talk about the environment or recycling or trying to impose climate agreements or sanctions on other nations with heavy pollution.
I suppose in practice my immediate family is reasonably conservative and cares about recycling and not littering. But I never hear about it from conservative politicians or political advocates.
Intelligent conservatives practice personal environmental discipline to beautify their own immediate environment but are skeptical of legislative attempts to force environmentalism, viewing it (rightfully) as lawfare to disburse sinecures. Stupid conservatives just don't think that this green shit helps, and if prompted will wave at third world shitholes polluting far more than they and their kin do.
The case for environmentalism is that it is the purest manifestation of the tragedy of the commons, but the spoiler fact is that liberals insist on giving third world shitholes unlimited charity while scolding rich countries instead. If people actually cared about environmentalism they'd decry the saudi petroleum industry, but instead criticism is only reserved for useless corporate suits that will make the right groveling pretenses.
Not just stupid conservatives. The California and New Jersey disposable plastic bag bans both resulted in more plastic use, not less, as determined by the states themselves (of course they won't repeal them; the environment wasn't the point). And I'm sure you'll find plenty of reasonably intelligent conservatives who are skeptical of the value of most post-consumer recycling.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, one argument goes that that's why environmentalism attracts the "blue-tribe conservative" types. A German friend dismissed the Green party something to the effect of "CSU [centre-right] NIMBYs with a vacation home in the countryside" back in the noughties, long before the "leftists are now the establishment" meme really proliferated. In the end, it can just be conceptualised as different preferences as to what to conserve - the environment, or the oligarchy of those who burn the environmental seedcorn most efficiently.
More options
Context Copy link
Most proposed measures to help with climate change involve making enormous social and economic changes, which have to be weighed against climate change. So on that level, there you go.
Personally I'm a lot more worried about the policies people have floated to 'combat' climate change than I am about the climate change.
So it's more an issue of extremism? The conservatives care about the environment in a balanced way with tradeoffs, while the progressives want to move fast and break things and damn the side effects? Because that generally tracks with my overall model of how the sides operate. But then why don't we hear more about moderate conservative conservation efforts?
Your typical American red triber cares about preserving the environment for human use but does not believe climate change is real and doesn't give two shits about the last remaining three-speckled banana slug being replaced by two-speckled banana slugs. Normal conservatives are very much on board with- this does not necessarily mean they get off their couches and do it, but the people that do get off their couches for trash clean ups are ones with a resting orientation of 'moderate conservative'- cleaning up trash in the environment and generally willing to recycle if it keeps plastic from clogging up waterways. Ducks unlimited(conservative-ish) is probably much more effective at preserving wetlands than the sierra club. It's not, like, a fact that gets trumpeted by the media(do laymen even know what ducks unlimited is?). But 'boy scout conservationism' is a thing which does stuff.
Key parallels to the recent "pro lifers don't care about babies after they're born" discussion, where everyone's preconceptions rest on a base of leftist propaganda carefully shoehorned into every tv show, with the goal of making counter-argument impossible.
Preparing the ground of a fight with land mines and razor wire is just as important as waging it, and conservatives keep walking right into prepared kill zones by engaging as if it's a debate club rather than a battle against enemies trying to exterminate them.
Holy shit, you're right. In related news, did you know that the NRA is a national leader in gun safety education?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, if it weren’t for hairshirt environmentalists and watermelon Green Parties using climate change as an excuse to create a better world, conservatives would probably be more on board with conservation and more opposed to pollution.
God, those comments.
More options
Context Copy link
These aren't better worlds. Urbanite social activists are unable/unwilling to acknowledge how urban biodiversity is an intense pest and tree management exercise because biological matter generates an ecosystem that interferes with human life. My favourite is the cartoons shared repeatedly about streets lined with fruit trees for the homeless to eat at will or other pastoric idyll guff, or the appeal of 15 minute cities. No consideration for biological realities of bugs and roots, no consideration for antisocial elements or the cost to build and manage all these aspects. Continued self delusions drive people further away from these utopian goals, and it just increases the self righteous ess of the activists.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link