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 -
Do we? Perhaps if you have reason to trust IBA's judgment despite them being quite abrupt and tight-lipped about it, you believe it. I don't, and the other info appear to be coming out the other way. As found by other posters, Khelif's record is not the dominating streak one would expect from a male fighting women, neither do her other fights suggest she is a stronger if unskilled fighter.
Given that you were criticizing me for engaging in precisely the same type of skepticism, I think you shouldn't be allowed to use it here. The ICO is just as cagey, they never bothered denying that the IBOs tests took place, or their accuracy, nor have they made a statement about their own tests show something different. Instead,l they're focusing on accusations of corruption, or decrying the fairness of the tests having been done at all / not testing all the other athletes.
That's not info "coming out the other way". This does not prove the athletes sex one way or the other, and is nothing but a deflection from a very simple question.
If you want to stay completely agnostic on the athlete's sex, be my guest. Even if I accept a 50/50 prior (which is ridiculous, approximately no one, not even the die-hard gender-non-assumers do that), performing on par with other female-patterned boxers is info.
I'm not engaging in "precisely the same type of skepticism". You said you can't know her sex one way or the other without evidence. I'm saying I can, in fact, know "one way", even if it's not 100%. I trust my eyes more than I do Olympic (or formerly Olympic-certified) commissions, that's all.
I'm leaning towards them being dudes, but I'm not going to act like it's based on "info coming out the other way". My point us you're selectively playing a skeptic, all the while you were acting outraged that I asked for concrete evidence earlier.
The whole idea of using Bayesian analysis for these sorts of controversies was a disaster for rational discourse, so I don't particularly care what priors you pick.
Performance is irrelevant, this matter can be resolved with a simple test, and people claiming these athletes are women are bending themselves into pretzels to avoid having these tests done, which is highly suspicious behavior.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link