site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32970 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 13, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

And yet the obesity rate was much lower in living memory, and people who follow the procedure of ‘just shoving fewer groceries down their maw’ lose weight. Yes, that entails being hungry sometimes and passing on dessert most of the time and probably learning to drink water. But pushing people to actually do those things is a plausible justification for fat shaming.

Yes, that entails being hungry sometimes and passing on dessert most of the time and probably learning to drink water.

Isn't this what a diet is. yet the stats are pretty miserable. ppl lose weight and then regain it

Don't you know people with healthy diets? I have relatives who eat muesli and yoghurt in the morning, a salad with some prosciutto berries for lunch, some potato chips (that is to say fairly traditional ones with just potato and salt) and cheese in front of the television, then beef, rice and vegetables for dinner. Or maybe salmon or lamb instead of beef.

They're not fat and never have been. It's not dieting so much as having a healthy diet. If we started people on that sort of diet rather than American style plastic food, there'd be no problem. These people have no attraction to McDonalds or whatever, they look upon it with disgust.

I know lots of people who maintain a healthy weight. I know many fewer people who were once obese but then slimmed down and maintained a healthy weight by dieting. It's far from clear from the data that "trying to diet" or "telling people to diet" is an effective intervention once they are already obese. It seems like something intrinsic to metabolism and appetite regulation is irreversibly broken at that point, and the only permanent solutions are gastric surgery and (now, hopefully) semaglutide and its analogues.

not so much healthy but rather eat little. I know someone who would often go something like 9 hours without eating anything. Dinner + small amount of food in morning...that's it. Stayed thin forever. No snacking, But steak for dinner and pastry in morning, so not particularly healthy anyway. Plus daily exercise.

People have been trying to figure this out for a century. Think of all the federal and state dollars spent on raising awareness about health, school lunches, etc. As an HBD and libertarian leaning person, I am inclined to believe this is infective. A bunch of factors come into play: Something as basic or fundamental as food is still largely a mystery. I think the solution will have to come from the private sector to provide better drugs to combat obesity and better substitutes for food, like low calorie food that better mimics high calorie food.

How can it be a mystery? It's like Scott's example of the Russian periodic table with room-temperature superconductors and antigravity. There are some healthy diets in the world. There's the upper middle-class pious diet with home-cooking, multigrain bread, fruit, fish and so on. There's the Japanese diet with fish and rice - there's zero problem with obesity in Japan. The Mediterrenean diet isn't bad either. Only as countries westernize, only as McDonalds and Coca Cola expand into new markets does obesity emerge.

The most obese countries are Pacific Islanders, which is genetics-related, followed by oil-rich Arab countries who are ultra-Westernized and then the US.

According to wikipedia, Ethiopia has a higher proportion of obese people than Japan! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_obesity_rate

I'm confident that if the US government shifted its vast agricultural subsidies program towards pumping out sushi rather than corn and beef, there would be quick improvement. I agree that raising awareness does nothing, what's needed is serious movement on the ground. Dissolve Coca-Cola, retrain fast food cooks to produce sushi, ban HFCS and things will turn around quickly.

n=1, but I pretty much only eat pizza and other take-out food, and have for the majority of my life (I'm in my 30s now). I'm not fat and haven't been since I was a kid. It's not my metabolism or genetics, either - I quickly gain pounds if I let myself indulge snacks too much for a few weeks. In that eventuality, I just eat slightly less for a few weeks and go back down. I know the CICO observation is trite at this point, but it's true. It's trivially true. You simply won't get fat if you just don't eat excessively.

I suspect the sort of disdainful attitude you're describing/exhibiting (e.g., "plastic food") is just class signaling and virtue signaling, frankly. Pizza and burgers, for example, are just wheat, tomatoes, cheese, and meat. But combine them into the form of pizza or burgers and all the sudden it evokes an image of a lower class person who's perhaps not that bright, not that health-conscious, doesn't really understand nutrition, doesn't really want to put in the effort to be "healthy" (unlike you, dear observer, of course), and probably also has Coors Light instead of craft beer in his fridge.

I'm not against pizza or burgers in principle. If you make them from good ingredients than that's fine. I was more thinking of the aisles in the grocery store full of plasticky sweets. There'll be a row of soft drink next to a row of chips with flavors unknown to nature. Stuff like gummy bears.

Furthermore, it is true that poor, lower-class people are fatter than rich people, generally speaking. In this case, my classism and disdain is based upon fact. I won't say that the diet I describe above is ideal - these are also people who buy and unironically eat kale and non-alchoholic kombucha which is just repulsive. Nevertheless, it is possible to buy high-quality ingredients that taste good and don't cause significant obesity. Sugary Starbucks drinks aren't healthy either, despite being middle-class as opposed to lower class.

I know CICO is fundamentally correct, and I've conquered my fat demons, but they did exist. If you can eat crappy food every meal without consequence you really are fortunate in some ways. I won't claim it's anything complicated or impossible to overcome but there really do exist people who if not diligently rounded in will balloon out.

Do you know where to buy actual muesli or toasted oat-based cereal any more? All my local stores stopped carrying the last one they had, and now the only marginally edible cereals are that horrible raisin bran stuff packed with as much sweetener as kids' Sugar Puffs.

I guess it fell victim to the successive wave of fads against carbs and grains

I guess it fell victim to the successive wave of fads against carbs and grains

Or it just was getting outcompeted for shelf space by the chocolate frosted sugar bombs.

Because they don’t stick with it.

That's because sustained willpower is hard. For a diet to work long term, it requires a more fundamental behavioral change than just toughing it out.

Do you think that the root cause of increased obesity today vs in 1970 is primarily due to people in 1970 being more persistent in sticking to a diet where they are hungry sometimes? If so, do you think that's due to a general decline in willingness to stick with unpleasant things in general between the 1970s and now, or something specific to dietary habits (e.g. "feeling slightly hungry" was a feeling with ~neutral valence in 1970, but is a feeling with negative valence now)?

It's food getting cheaper, more palatable and shelf-stable, plus the normalization of snacking (aka eating while doing other things).

  • Cheetos were invented in 1948

  • Sugar-frosted flakes were created in 1952

  • The first flavored potato chips were created in 1954

  • Trix was created in 1954

  • Domino's was founded in 1960

  • Taco Bell was founded in 1962

  • Froot Loops were created in 1963

  • Cap'n Crunch was created in 1963

  • Commercial production of corn syrup began in 1964, allowing for cheaper sweet food

  • Lucky Charms were created in 1964

  • Pringles were invented in 1968.

  • Cheese Doritos were created in 1972

  • Honey Nut Cheerios were created in 1979

It's a wonder people weren't getting fat in the 70's with all this sweet and savory junk, I guess with just PBS, CBS, NBC and ABC on TV they had more active pastimes.

Also, as mentioned above, smoking and leaded gasoline probably also played a significant role.

I think the root causes are multiple, but that an increasing unwillingness to stick with things that require putting in the work to achieve results is a major factor. I would also point to soda becoming cheaper to the point of being a replacement for water, and less home cooking alongside skyrocketing portion sizes, in addition to less tolerance for healthy but not especially tasty food.

I'm pretty sure they main relevant difference is the lack of smoking.

Also the reduction in environmental lead.

That's an interesting hypothesis. I imagine, if it were true, we would see a smaller increase in the obesity rate in people who are or were in professions that require a strong work ethic and significant grit, and a larger increase in the obesity rate of those who don't.

Specifically, I would expect, in that case, to see warehouse workers getting fatter faster than doctors (despite a similar level of physical activity being required in each job), since I would expect that doctors have not experienced significant slippage in willingness to put in work (if anything, my impression is that medicine has gotten more competitive). My impression is also that the Marines requires considerably more perseverance and grit than the Air Force, so I would expect former marines to be getting fatter more slowly than former members of the air force.

I have not yet looked at those data points, but do you think that those are a reasonable set of concrete observations that you would expect to see if the laziness hypothesis is the primary contributing factor?

Sure, that seems reasonable, although we should probably note that doctors are also, by and large, older than warehouse workers, and less likely to be kept in shape by their jobs, so you’d need more datapoints than just a few to average out confounder like that.

IIRC the working class(which has no great barrier to entry) has much higher obesity rates than the professional class(which filters out people too lazy/dumb/undisciplined to earn a college degree).

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