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 -
A couple of points- I'm not married to any of them, but I think all of them are at least worth considering. I definitely invite anyone who has further information/context/pushback on any of these to bring it.
Atoms for peace was a thing, once. Cold war era programs tend to get wound down even if they were actually kind of cool, but "a nuclear power provides enough assistance to running a nuclear power plant in your country that you can't use it to build a weapon" isn't unprecedented, and winding it down out of bureaucratic inertia is just bureaucratic inertia.
The environmental movement has a pretty big anti-nuclear wing. In my more optimistic moments I think this is because they're wildly misinformed; in my more cynical moments I think it's because they don't actually want a solution to carbon emissions, they want a continuing problem that gets money sent to their NGO's. In my really depressing moments I think it's because they have a solution in mind, and it's "everybody be poor", and that like lockdowners in 2020, they're not interested in discussing alternatives because they've settled on a solution and anyone who disagrees with them is axiomatically evil. I don't think there's a nice explanation for the anti-nuclear environmentalists and I also don't think they're Alex Jones villians who just hate whites or whatever; surely some are, but there's enough of them pushing electric cars and the like that I think they mostly are motivated by climate change and sinecures.
The environmental movement is bound up in progressive signalling. This is I guess a subset of 2, but it seems worth pulling out separately. Nuclear energy(and hydropower, and now that I think about it any workable solution) is a right-wing coded solution so a group that wants to signal progressive credentials will avoid it in favor of rambling about things that can't solve the problem.
The institutions dedicated to brainstorming solutions for climate change have a habit of not noticing the developing world. Like, that it exists. Yes, this habit is bad and they should feel bad for it. But we can't really change it; these institutions treat "now, what's your plan for the developing world" as "what about China" bad faith trolling. And that attitude just bleeds over; these people see their mission as making the US, CANZUK, EU carbon neutral by means x,y,z. They are very committed to both sides of that equation and nuclear power plants aren't part of it.
More options
Context Copy link