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 -
As a Red Sox fan, I decided to search the list for Pedro Martinez, and I was shocked and appalled to find that the first hit in Ctrl+F for "Pedro" was for Dustin Pedroia in the description for David Ortiz, listed as number 45 (Pedro's jersey number at Boston, coincidentally enough), with Pedro Martinez being listed all the way down at 92. David Ortiz is deservedly a legend for his almost supernatural ability to get the right hit at the right time, but the notion that he belongs anywhere above Pedro, much less 47 spots ahead of him, is a complete absurdity. As much as I love Ortiz, I'm not even sure his career warrants his HOF induction. On the other hand, Pedro is correctly talked about as possibly the best pitcher ever (probably most wouldn't place him as 1, but any conversation about a top 3 would at least mention him), despite his injury-filled shortened career, due in large part of his ridiculous 1998-2000 seasons during the steroid era. And I don't know if it counts for anything, but he did it all while being under 6 feet tall (by like half an inch, but still), which is almost unheard of for a Major League pitcher.
I think this is just a bad, stupid, clickbait-focused list, and any CW-related stuff are just apophenia. Well, they were probably subconsciously inserted by the voters and journalists, to be fair, but I'd guess that's the extent of it.
The baseball picks were largely weird. Adrian Beltre and Derek Jeter and David Ortiz?
Adrian Beltre actually was great. Amazingly so. He generated about 80 WAR in the 2000s. About 1/3 of HoF are at 70 or below.
In contrast during the same post 1999 period Jeter “only” had 53.6 WAR. Ortiz only had 50.9 (note Ortiz’s entire career amounted only to 51 WAR — he is one of the most overrated ball players of all time).
There is a giant gap between Beltre and the other two 2000 and onward
To be clear I don't think any of those three belong. I say this as someone who had a Derek Jeter poster on my wall as a kid and read and reread his autobiography. Jeter has a reputation entirely built on the 1997-2000 run, take that away as this list purports to do and he's merely a very good shortstop. Jeter absolutely belongs on a list for the last thirty years, but not the last 25.
Ortiz was a career DH and simply didn't do enough to make it, he's all personality and no stats. Beltre arguably has the stats, but lacks the impact or personality.
In my mind greatest athlete is about impact on the game, statistical achievements, accomplishments (ie championships etc), and impact on culture. Not necessarily in that order, but you need at least a dose of all three to make it into the list.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link