site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   29321 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 4, 2024

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's another one of those bills that tweaks definitions just enough to put the lobbyists' competitors out of business. Chickens now need exactly 116 square inches of space, and if yours have 115 your investment is now worth nothing.
You can guess how the 116 number was arrived at.

But the general point of my post is why we even waste time saying things like "the blatant lying aside" when the blatant lying is the driving force behind all the individual examples.
We could spend days arguing about how many chickens can lay on the head of a pin despite none of us having any relevant experience in chicken housing (all mine were free-range when I bothered--it wasn't worth it).

But what would be the point of that? We've been doing it for over a decade and things just keep getting more and more insane as the same people keep lying to our faces about it until it's too late to stop them.

It's another one of those bills that tweaks definitions just enough to put the lobbyists' competitors out of business. Chickens now need exactly 116 square inches of space, and if yours have 115 your investment is now worth nothing. You can guess how the 116 number was arrived at.

Wait, 116 square inches? That's less than a square foot of space per chicken, how is that a "cage-free" environment? Are they all just packed into a large barn like Japanese salarymen into a train carriage? That's doesn't sound like a material QoL improvement for the birds.

Certified Humane mandates 6lbs of chickens per square foot, so a full-grown ten-pound broiler should have at least 1.67 square feet of space. Their definition of "free-range" requires two square feet per bird in addition to 1.67 square feet of shelter, but even that doesn't sound like much of an improvement. You have to go all the way to "pasture-raised" (108 sq ft per bird) to get something that doesn't resemble a death camp.

You have to go all the way to "pasture-raised" (108 sq ft per bird) to get something that doesn't resemble a death camp.

You realize they're all death camps, right, including the ones with 108 sq ft per bird?

That doesn't mean the poor things can't enjoy their lives while it lasts.

You know that PETA slogan about farms being Auschwitz? You know that neonazi talking point about how Auschwitz had a swimming pool for the prisoners? Thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis? Eh?

Chickens now need exactly 116 square inches of space, and if yours have 115 your investment is now worth nothing. You can guess how the 116 number was arrived at.

You can make this argument against any minimum area restriction.

You should make this argument against any minimum area restriction, unless you have solid evidence that the minimum area restriction was arrived at through an impartial and objective process. Under no circumstances should the evidentiary basis and objectivity of such a process be simply assumed.

I don't know what kind of evidence would possibly be considered 'solid' for something like this for people who disagree with the whole project to begin with.

I don't know what kind of evidence would possibly be considered 'solid' for something like this for people who disagree with the whole project to begin with.

I'm not generally a fan of "studies show", but this seems like an area where a study showing things might be helpful. If the idea is to reduce chicken misery, some objective definition of how we measure/recognize chicken misery and a demonstration that enclosures over the specified size reliably reduces it would be appreciated.

For that matter, pointing out that the enclosure size is being set by proxy via California's import regulations settles much of the question, and updates me against taking the OP's narrative on this point seriously.

Not really. If it was an obviously large number set at an obviously round number, it would be pretty unlikely that it was set based on regulatory capture.

AFAICT 116 square inches originates with California rules issued in 2013. I would assume that other states copied the number because it's the smallest number that still grants access to the Californian market (previous laws required compliance with prop 2 (2008) to sell eggs in California, which didn't actually specify a cage size but it seems producers mostly play it safe and follow the 116 square inch rule). Maybe you can blame California for making up a dumb number, but that's not why other states are following suit now.

Since then, Washington and California have passed a law requiring 144 square inches (which I am sure will be unobjectionable to the OP since this is a round number) with a lengthy phase in (so no, the investments don't disappear overnight).

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