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 -
Uh, 400 years ago we were subsistence farmers. Which famously leads to malnutrition and stunted growth, as we can see with height rising in europe over the last centuries. People raised on non-organic lentils and meat are mostly substantially healthier than farmers who ate organic nongmo grain.
Star Wars and LOTR are still available, and in fact cheaper. And we have anime now!
Yes which is bad but that has a specific identifiable cause (pervasive land use restrictions) rather than the economy being bad.
Who is that? The average Westerner eats processed food and micro-plastics, and drinks artificial hormones and corn syrup. European farmers were not vegans, idk where you got this idea from.
Avatar the last airbender came out in the 2000s, I'm not aware of any other successful Western-made anime. If anything the new Pixar and Disney cartoons are worse than the past ones.
The mayor of NYC blames it on immigration. City-dwellers need to learn to tackle their crime problem before they preach to others about increasing population density.
Vegan? I said their diets relied on grain, and that they had many more health problems than modern people, as demonstrated by lower heights caused by stunted growth.
The US doesn't make anime, but USians watch anime, so they aren't poorer by your standard. I don't like the current state of western media, but that's not super relevant to the point.
Yeah, he's wrong, Eric Adams is twitter famous for saying a ton of funny contradictory incoherent things.
What evidence do you have this was caused by malnutrition? I haven't taken a direct look at the skeletal remains, but royal beds were tiny by our standards. And I don't know if they meant it to be accurate, but some museums I visited opted to portray the richest men at the time as pretty short as well.
It's the scientific consensus? This is a review on the topic.
In regard to your specific objection, a recent study found that those in higher social classes were taller: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8516076/
So?
There's a trend there, but not as massive as you're implying. The gentry is about the same height as the wealthier craftsmen. Also, what you said sounded like the difference in height between people now and then comes to malnutrition, and to my knowledge that simply cannot by supported. The aristocrats wouldn't be just a few centimeters above average, if that was the case, they would be towering giants.
The (very broad) review I linked itself links to other reviews that go into the evidence for why nutrition was a component.
I imagine it saturates, you can't become a giant today by eating 4kcal/day. And I think some of the growth stunting was caused by disease.
It being a component does is not enough to prove the very broad point you were making earlier.
Yes, my point exactly.
Sure, but that's neither here nor there regarding the quality of their nutrition. No one denies the progress in hygiene and medicine.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link