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 -
I honestly have to ask - did you even read the article you posted? I can't understand how you can make a claim like this on the basis of a piece of evidence supporting my point.
...
What exactly do you think "alarmingly consistent with the most recently collected empirical data" actually means? You've also done absolutely nothing to engage with the works of the theorist I actually cited (Hubbert), presumably because he has been proven correct on a consistent basis for the past several decades.
Too snarky, I take that back.
It means they cling to their falsified beliefs, unswayed by decades of evidence.
Which predictions have they made, that have come true? I have cited several, that were refuted.
I forgot, you have Hubbert's peak. Except, in 2017 the US blasted through the previous production record, when hubbert's peak was supposed to signal the perpetually diminishing trickle of our last oil. Honestly, do you think Hubbert predicted that?
You're not taking this remotely seriously. "The model matches up with the evidence" is a direct quote from the article, and you're saying that they're unswayed by decades of evidence. Did you even read the article you cited? They came to their "falsified" belief because they looked at the evidence and based their belief on it!
Hubbert predicted the peak of US conventional oil extraction fairly accurately (I believe he was a year or two off the peak), though he was slightly off with the quantity (I don't believe he accounted for the off-shore oil, which explains the discrepancy). You haven't cited several that were refuted, you've misunderstood the claims that were being made and you even attempted to pass off an article directly arguing against your position as support for it.
Hubbert was predicting peak CONVENTIONAL oil. He was correct, and he did actually take shale oil into account, but he (also correctly) thought that shale oil wasn't a real replacement for conventional oil. Shale and conventional oil are extremely different energy sources with different depletion rates, quality, EROEI, etc, and you just make your thinking less clear if you conflate them. I can see how you would think that Hubbert was wrong if you can't even understand the arguments he's making or read the sources you're citing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link