site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   37165 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 22, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The McDonalds Hot Coffee lawsuit continues to be a travesty and the "fact sheet" from the American Trial Lawyers Association which all the contrarians swallowed whole to say otherwise was nonsense from the start.

Could you elaborate in specific detail on why it's nonsense?

Critics of the McDonalds judgment usually point to the fact that the lady spilled the coffee on herself. Which I understand, it’s like suing Black and Decker for someone bonking themselves on the head with a hammer. People who agree with the McDonalds judgment point to the fact that the coffee served at McDonalds back then was extremely hot: McD’s used to keep their coffee a few degrees short of boiling at time of service. This is far too hot to drink for an extended period of time. In fact if you tried to drink it at the time of service you would probably injure yourself. People generally expect hot coffee to be hot, and that you should be careful with it. But I don’t think they expect it to be so hot that it literally melts your genitals off your body (which is what happened in the case), and that you should exercise the same extreme caution you would use for handling molten iron slag at an industrial plant.

But I don’t think they expect it to be so hot that it literally melts your genitals off your body

But they should. That's what boiling water does, any adult should know how to handle boiling water, and you should expect any hot beverage you ordered to be just a few degrees short of boiling.

...We just had a thread where a lot of people seemed flatly dismissive that a pot of boiling water could be a seriously threatening weapon. Inspired by this comment, I did a quick google search and confirmed that boiling water attacks are routinely charged under "attempted murder" without controversy.

I think "is boiling water dangerous" is a pretty good example of an opinion that is observably functionally meaningless, due to specific emotional valiances swamping all factual considerations.

I think this is that thread :) The McDonald's case got brought up as a comparison, and because someone was wondering how opinions on it correlate to this shooting.

I'm camp "hot water is definitely dangerous, but that does not mean the cops acted correctly". I refuse to go beyond that, as it would require watching the videos, and as others, I have a firm policy of not watching snuff films.

Iron melts at 2800 degrees Fahrenheit. The McDonalds coffee temperature was somewhere between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit. They were not the same.

I think that's an unnecessary nitpick, and we should encourage colorful metaphors because they're fun to read.

It misrepresents the central point of the case. McDonalds coffee was hot coffee, not some sort of ultra-dangerous killer liquid. If you've ever made instant coffee or tea you've made a hotter beverage.

Here's a NSFW reddit thread with a picture of her burns, which is way worse than the experience most people get when they spill coffee on themselves. I daresay something that would cause those injuries could be reasonably described as "ultra-dangerous".

One of the answers to this Quora question has a picture of someone's arm after they touched molten metal, and to non-medical me it seems similar enough to the lady's injuries. Yes, less time in contact with skin between her coffee and his slag, but I just don't think the distinction is enough to be worth arguing over.

And, again, I like a good metaphor.

Here's a NSFW reddit thread with a picture of her burns, which is way worse than the experience most people get when they spill coffee on themselves. I daresay something that would cause those injuries could be reasonably described as "ultra-dangerous".

It wasn't any sort of extreme temperature which made the burns bad. It was pouring the very hot water on a sensitive area of an elderly woman's body, then literally sitting in it with clothing that apparently made it worse. At this point the apologists then invoke the eggshell skull rule, but that's wrong; the eggshell skull rule is about damages, not liability.

Here's a NSFW reddit thread with a picture of her burns, which is way worse than the experience most people get when they spill coffee on themselves

Yes, but that is not because McDonald's made some magical McEvil Coffee that was 400° hot without it being immediately obvious by looking at the cup from a distance.

Someone in this thread tried making the argument that the cops shouldn't be affaid of having boiling water thrown at them, because they were clothed. Someone else pointed out that this makes things worse. This is what happened here. If she prepared coffee at home, spilled it herself while wearing the same clothes, the effect would be just as bad, or worse.

Huh, alright, Claude agrees with you about the home brewing:

Q. What is the temperature range for coffee in a carafe of a home drip coffee brewer? In *Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, *Stella Liebeck's attorneys argued that, at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C), McDonald's coffee was abnormally hot, but I have trouble assessing that claim without knowing how hot other coffee is.

A. To assess the claim made in the Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants case, it's helpful to compare the temperature of McDonald's coffee to typical home-brewed coffee. Let's look at the temperature range for coffee in a carafe of a home drip coffee brewer:

  1. Brewing temperature: Most home drip coffee makers brew coffee at temperatures between 195°F to 205°F (90.5°C to 96°C). This is the ideal range for extracting the best flavors from coffee grounds.
  2. Initial serving temperature: Immediately after brewing, the coffee in the carafe is typically around 180°F to 185°F (82°C to 85°C).
  3. Holding temperature: Many home coffee makers with warming plates maintain coffee at temperatures between 150°F to 170°F (65.5°C to 76.7°C) after brewing.

Comparing these temperatures to the 180–190°F (82–88°C) range cited in the Liebeck case:

The McDonald's coffee temperature falls within the range of freshly brewed coffee from a home machine. However, it's higher than the typical holding temperature of home-brewed coffee after it has been sitting on a warming plate.

I wish you The_Nybbler had focused on that instead of the slag part. Because, and I am wondering if you're not people aren't hearing me here because you haven't nobody has replied to this point, I liked the metaphor and hope we continue to have colorful writing here.

Edit: I just realized you're not The_Nybbler. Correcting last paragraph in italics, original text crossed out.

More comments

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