site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   29427 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 19, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

When the program extends to mental health institutions and picks up a motto of Voting Is Great For You Actually Because Anecdote this seems like it should be made an issue.

I think the issue here is really just the honesty of presentation.

A while back, I was feeling a bit unmoored and ahedonic, a uni counselor said (among other advice) "drink lots of water and take a walk outside every day". I asked if that would really help and he said maybe not, but in any event it was a good idea to drink water and take a walk outside.

Encouraging patients to do the things they need to do even if (and I agree) it very likely won't help with their condition seems OK if done with candor.

If you had to ask "does it really help", it was not with candor.

Things that people do involve tradeoffs. If the doctor doesn't properly communicate which measure has which effect, the patient can't properly decide the tradeoffs. Taking a walk outside is low on the scale of burdens, but it still isn't free, and implying that it helps with the patient's condition when it doesn't is dishonest, even if the doctor admits it when questioned.

He didn't say it definitely wouldn't help.

For a college age kid with a vague complaint like "I feel disconnected from my life and don't take pleasure in a lot of things", it's completely sane advice. And, as you said, it's certainly lower on the scale of burden than "spend $$$ on in depth psychotherapy to discover what it is".

It's the mental health equivalent of "take two advil, get a good night sleep, and call me in the morning if it's not better". Treatment proceeds from least invasive to most, even if the former has somewhat lower probability of success (if only because many health issues, mental and physical, abate on their own anyway).

People with depression should be encouraged to do normal person things. How far up the list would you put voting? High enough to start a major non-profit? There's plenty of functional, healthy people that don't find voting necessary or worth worrying about. At least when it comes to the psych patients it screams predatory to me.

What would a more candid presentation look like to you?

This is what it might look like to me: "yes we are a D political advocacy group that aims to register more Ds. We offer registration resources to other non-D voting demographics. As this allows us to call ourselves non-partisan and more effectively recruit potential doctors to help our political cause. We will not try nearly as hard to reach non-D voting demographics, either through resource allocation or messaging, but that is not our mission."

My candid description might be uncharitable. If it is I encourage you explain why it might be. I don't believe a truly non-partisan voter registration non-profit for hospitals goes national. It definitely doesn't creep into inpatient mental health treatment centers. Not enough juice to squeeze there. "You can register to vote here" sign in a waiting room doesn't have the same pizazz as massive non-profits with a mission and culture aligned with the interests of one party. The goal is to leverage trust in doctors on one end and hope the correct type of votes come out the other end. It's not even trying to obfuscate, really.

Addressing ethical questions should be more than half the battle in doing anything non-medicinal in medicine. That's a good standard to have in a high stakes profession.

People with depression should be encouraged to do normal person things. How far up the list would you put voting?

I would probably put it reasonably high given that they have to do it literally once in a year and then feel good they have performed their civic duty. Especially for people that likely feel significant sadness about not fulfilling many of their other duties.

There's plenty of functional, healthy people that don't find voting necessary or worth worrying about.

Traditionally we've described this as a minor abdication of duty.

yes we are a D political advocacy group that aims to register more Ds. We offer registration resources to other non-D voting demographics. As this allows us to call ourselves non-partisan and more effectively recruit potential doctors to help our political cause. We will not try nearly as hard to reach non-D voting demographics, either through resource allocation or messaging, but that is not our mission

Sure. That seems like bread and butter stuff in the advocacy world.

Maybe the disconnect is, I don't see non-partisan to be the same as non-political. Obviously any kind of GOTV is political in nature.

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