site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 24, 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.

13
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Imo you’re retreating deeper and deeper into more far-fetched explanations and unknowable information.

And you're jumping to conclusions based on presentism. None of what I'm telling you here about food surplus is controversial, it's a well documented fact that the people of the country side seldom interacted using money, being paid and paying for things in kind for most of their institutional interactions.

One of the quotes says the food situation was even worse in the 17th century than in the 18th, which matches with the unprecedented pop growth in the 18th.

So are we ever going to talk about the middle ages at any point or are you just going to keep focusing on the worst part of the early modern period so you can take a documented non-central example and make your point that people must have been starving by only looking at a famine?

I too can focus on Mao to say the Communist Chinese were tremendously unsuccessful, but it doesn't really seem very reasonable.

The article also mentions, and calculates from, 290 days of work/y.

As I've explained before, there is heavy debate on this particular issue and that estimate is on the upper side of scholarly works. You can find estimates between 150 and 300.

Consider this excerpt from Shor for the view from the other side. I tend to think it's on the lower end, though not as low as Shor believes.

Can you give me one of those qualitative accounts/anecdotes

Sure, here's one, in 965 English King Edgar had to decree that there only be one alehouse per village because pubs were so extremely popular. You'd think a perpetually starving people wouldn't exactly have enough ressources and time to spare on drink and leisure to fund so many establishments that it actually becomes a problem.