site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   16082 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 19, 2022

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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Given leftwingers and liberals new penchant for bashing the notion of freedom (“FREEDUMB”) I think you’re correct. I see “personal carbon credits” as the new horizon, with opposition being taken down quickly with accusations of racism and/or conspiracy theory

People with higher levels of education will likely be accorded more carbon credits under the notion that they are performing more valuable labour to society like giving DEI seminars or other important activism

This comment is bad, just projecting boo-motives onto your outgroup, and the thread it spawned is why we have a rule against just writing sentiments like "Liberals suck and hate freedom." Take your culture-warring flash fiction elsewhere.

@Azth @Astranagant

You’re right, I was half joking in the second paragraph but it’s not obvious at all

Although on the other hand:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00756-w

Predicting AIs policing people's bathing ration is only "an uncharitable smear" if you think it's bad, apparently. Funny how that works.

Furthermore, the Covid-19 crisis brings many lessons learned for the future adoption of personal carbon allowances. The Covid-19 crisis, has risen awareness on the interconnectedness and effects of individuals' actions. During the Covid-19 pandemic, schemes for individual accountability and responsibility that were unthinkable only one year before have been adopted by millions of people.

Arguably, the increased awareness of individual responsibilities on today´s global sustainable development issues, together with lessons learned on Covid-19 tracking, could pave the way for the adoption of PCA schemes for climate action.

When we point out that this is their goal it's a boo-outgroup conspiracy theory, even if we quote their own fucking words.

Want me to link dozens of leftist "climate warriors" saying exactly the same thing but without the sarcasm?

You cannot say "Liberals suck and hate freedom" even if you can find examples of liberals who suck and hate freedom.

You are not stupid, so generalize that principle. You understand the rules, why they exist, and what they mean. That you don't like the rules and wish them not to be enforced is irrelevant.

Stop this tiresome routine.

If they are on this forum then report the comments. If they aren't on this forum why bring them up? We don't moderate every place on the internet.

I'm confused - why would sincerely advocating personal social carbon credits be report-worthy?

Depends on how it's done. If someone said "I want social carbon credits to punish the right" ya I'd consider that inflammatory and worth being modded.

That's a non-sequitur, because nobody's asking for that. We're just pointing out that they are out there setting leftist policy; just look under any article about how "only radical action can solve the climate crisis."

There is a pattern where people here make completely accurate predictions about what the left will do and get banned for it. Then when it inevitably happens the mods who banned them just shrug, go along with it, put the pronouns in their bios, eat the bugs, and cut their daughter's breasts off because the school said so.

See the people going "ok I've deleted my master branch, but abolishing the colour red is a step too far and I will never stand for it!"

That's a non-sequitur, because nobody's asking for that. We're just pointing out that they are out there setting leftist policy; just look under any article about how "only radical action can solve the climate crisis."

I assume, then, that if a leftist came here and said "Conservatives are Holocaust-denying Nazis who literally want to purge Jews and reinstitute Jim Crow," you would consider that a wholly unobjectionable sentiment to express so long as they can point to conservatives who do in fact want to do that and say so?

There is a pattern where people here make completely accurate predictions about what the left will do and get banned for it.

Please point to an example of someone being banned for making a completely accurate prediction about what the left will do. I expect you to be rigorous and precise, not sloppy and disingenuous with your criteria.

Then when it inevitably happens the mods who banned them just shrug, go along with it, put the pronouns in their bios, eat the bugs, and cut their daughter's breasts off because the school said so.

What are you on? To my knowledge, no mods here have done any of those things.

If they are out there then you can link to them, backup inflammatory claims with evidence.

If a leftist comes on here and doesn't feel the way that you claim they feel, what can they say? "Nuh uh!" ...?

When you just make stuff up then there is no where for the discussion to go. If you link to the evidence there can at least be a discussion about whether the sample is representative, or just some crazies.

Flip the circumstances the other way around. If a leftist said "rightists just want to go around murdering drug users, and they don't do it yet cuz they can't fully get away with it". Its a non-starter of a discussion. But if they instead link to what is happening in the philipines, then you can go multiple directions. Maybe "that isn't what is happening", or "that would never happen in america for x reasons", or maybe you do think its a good idea and now there is actually some meat to the discussion.

There is a pattern where people here make completely accurate predictions about what the left will do and get banned for it.

There are good and bad ways to phrase predictions. The bad ways are just a boo outgroup speculative fiction post, meant to only be read by people that already agree. The good way requires some effort, internet sleuthing to find the leading edge of a political movement, and some thoughtful writing to not phrase it as just a blatant attack.

Then when it inevitably happens the mods who banned them just shrug, go along with it, put the pronouns in their bios, eat the bugs, and cut their daughter's breasts off because the school said so.

Frustratingly, I'm looking at spending tens of thousands of dollars a year to put my daughter into a private religious school for a religion I don't believe in just to avoid coming anywhere close to such a scenario. I didn't find my way here to TheMotte because I buy into mainstream consensus. But TheMotte is not a place for the bitter losers of the culture war to commiserate with one another (don't be mistaken I am one of those bitter losers). We have a higher standard of discussion here and we plan on holding people to it.

I'd like to add myself to the scolding. My addition was not good and I shall try to avoid such posts in the future.

Sure.

I see “personal carbon credits” as the new horizon, with opposition being taken down quickly with accusations of racism and/or conspiracy theory

Unlikely, given how fast transition towards photovoltaics and such is currently happening. Also fusion.

Degrowth people exist, but they're not convincing others.

As we’re seeing, photovoltaics and wind power are terrible from an energy security perspective. Nuclear isn’t, but it won’t get built.

Distributed system is terrible from energy security perspective? Really?

As for amount of energy, there's enough investment that at worst there would be some years with lower supply. Maybe shortages during one or two months of winter. That's not exactly apocalyptic.

Distributed system is terrible from energy security perspective? Really?

Theoretically, or actually existing distributed systems?

There are new geothermal projects which are pretty cool, obviously can't build them everywhere but there is more hope than people seem willing to admit to on either side of this debate.

30MW is chump change sadly. They're knocking down a dam that provides ten times that with no plan for replacement. (it'll be gas turbines or blackouts, depending on how much power the greens get)

Obviously a low-carbon energy infrastructure which actually works can be built, but, well, no one wants to do that. Progressives want a green new deal that seems to pick its projects based on their unreliability, conservatives want a gas-fired grid, and moderates want a series of tax credits that cost money to install photovoltaic panels on the residential roofs which don’t cover energy use.

Obviously a low-carbon energy infrastructure which actually works can be built

Obviously? If nuclear's off the table, I don't think this is obvious at all.

Nuclear being off the table is the reason it will never be built.

And yet here I have linked a reliable zero emission project worth somewhere in the ballpark of $60 million being built in california of all places.

Photovoltaics are the mechanism that turns "decarbonization" into "winter blackouts". Replace 50gw of coal with 50gw of solar (CF-adjusted), arguing that these are equivalent. Next winter your grid will collapse and rationing based on "social value" can begin.

See this graph of current germany power production showing solar and wind delivering nothing during the highest loads of the year. (Note this doesn't even include heating, because sky-high kwh prices mean they still use coal and gas for one of the largest winter loads!)

If you talk to any of the greens pushing "fundamental cultural changes", they are all targeting degrowth.

Fusion is irrelevant - there's nothing that work, and practically all methods that do work would result in massive amounts of irradiated parts after decomissioning - something the green lobby would pounce upon, knowing full well that to a typical HR manager, there's no difference between e.g. spent fuel and material that's neutron-activated reactor parts due to intense neutron flux.

Photovoltaics are worse than irrelevant, without corresponding battery tech (that doesn't exist) they're just a way of making your energy production much more expensive by making it bimodal. You have to invest into conventional power plants that you only run some of the time.

Degrowth people exist, but they're not convincing others.

They don't have to convince anyone. They're and have been writing EU policy for decades. At the moment, the plan is to carbon-tax everything by 2032. They're also just about to close down something like a third of Dutch farming sector due to 'nitrogen emissions'.

They might become accountable about three years after a severe economic collapse, by which time most of them will have decamped for the US or Australia or someplace.

Effortless shitpost.

The year is 2035, and the climate is changing....."Well aschually freedom to remain alive still applies as the carbon atoms in their bodies can get absorbed by living plants, but they did use 3.1 schwabbs more than alloted sooo...." says the smiling and shrugging climate activist as they immolate a preschool with napalm for not having sufficient carbon credits.

"US Republicans and UK Conservatives condemned the move, saying that as the transgression was only 3.1, merely killing a few children would have sufficed, and immolation is a climate-unfriendly way of disposing of criminals."

"Tories encourage genocide of the third world by failing to support climate measures, says Oxford professor "- reports the BBC

"Racist Tories want white babies to pollute the earth, here's how you can stop them" - Guardian in comment is free section

People with higher levels of education will likely be accorded more carbon credits under the notion that they are performing more valuable labour to society like giving DEI seminars or other important activism

Maybe not education as such, but doing the right sorts of jobs: academia, politics, journalism, multi-national business etc. Even better: they could apply for specific exemptions for specific flights etc., which could be checked by a non-partisan and diverse agency.

These conspiracy theories are weird, if we're going down the conspiracy route it's almost certainly the mundane, megabanks want to get paid by the government to build and own renewable energy assets in order to offset their tax burden. I mean this is literally true, the conspiracy theory is that there is collusion with the government and advocacy orgs. And personally having talked to the head of one of these megabank departments involved in renewable energy tax credits this is not the case but I'd understand if you don't believe me.

There can be coordination without collusion. Walking down a street, people coordinate on moving out of each other's way (at least some of the time...) but almost always without talking to each other about it.

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