site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   29551 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 26, 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.

Riding a bicycle is dangerous. If you spend much time on the road, you're competing with trucks and cars and buses. Speed is moderate and protection is low. Only motorcycles and helicopters are more dangerous.

note that applies only in areas without real bicycle infrastructure

engines are most efficient for travel and you can do something else at the same time, recouping some value. Even if it's just fantasizing or pondering, surely our time is worth more.

note that some exercise is needed for humans for healthy life - and I consider silly to either end as a diabetic land whale or first spend time in bus/car and then again in gym

If something requires you to wear a helmet while you do it, then it's hardly safe.

Exercise is nice to have but unnecessary. Obesity is a dietary problem, not an exercise problem.

Exercise is an absolute must have for a quality life.

If something requires you to wear a helmet while you do it, then it's hardly safe.

Cycling does not require wearing helmet.

At least commuting cycling on cycleways and low-traffic roads. If you do MTB/downhill then yes, you should have helmet. And if you drive on road where you have trucks and buses and cars going more than 30 km/h then helmet will not help so much anyway in case of a collision.

Exercise is nice to have but unnecessary. Obesity is a dietary problem, not an exercise problem.

Zero exercise and eating little is better than zero exercise and eating enormous amounts. But zero exercise and sitting all day is not exactly health either.

Cycling does not require wearing helmet.

Cycling absolutely requires a helmet. Biking in a nice American suburban neighborhood as a child, I got flung off my bike and came down hard on the front of my head. I smashed the front of a helmet and blacked out for some indeterminate period of time. I regained consciousness with a firetruck and a few firemen around me.

No cars were involved in this crash. Just a kid getting some cloth wrapped up in his front wheel. That helmet saved my life. If you get catapulted over your front wheel, you'll be wearing a helmet, or you'll likely get your head smashed open.

Cycling absolutely requires a helmet.

Yes, that's why there are no people who cycle without a helmet for their entire life and live. Oh wait.

That helmet saved my life.

It's impossible to say whether that is the case, since depending on the quality and design on the helmet, and how you landed, the helmet could have reduced the energy transferred to your head anywhere between almost zero to a significant amount. And even if you had been worse off, that doesn't mean you would have died.

You really should improve your reasoning ability, because the statement you made is closer to religion than to fact.

Nah. I'm rock solid correct. Some people are just terrible at judging risks. Europeans on bicycles especially.

That is extreme outlier and car driving also has such outliers.

Most of the country lacks “real infrastructure” for bikes. At best the state will paint a few lines on existing roads and call the rightmost lane a bike lane with no real barriers against traffic. At worst, they paint a bicycle lane symbol on a road with a 35mph speed limit and stick up a “share the road” sign or two. It gives the state prestige “we’re supporting green infrastructure!” And cash from the Feds. But it’s not a safe way to ride.

And exercise is pretty easy to get if you do a little while watching TV in the evening.

Most of the country lacks “real infrastructure” for bikes

I guess you mean Canada? Still, it would be "Riding a bicycle in Canada is dangerous" not "Riding a bicycle is dangerous" and is fixable relatively easily with some competence and effort.

In the same declaring "walking alone in city center during night is inherently dangerous and cannot be safe" is not true.

they paint a bicycle lane symbol on a road with a 35mph speed limit and stick up a “share the road” sign or two

that is not a bicycle infrastructure, that is just pure incompetence

I’m in the Midwest actually. And I drive on one of these “bike routes” daily. The speed limit is 35 MPH, cars regularly hit 40-45 because the speed isn’t enforced. Not only is there no shoulder on the road, but there’s a revine right at the edge of the road. But yes, after the mayor hit a biker, they painted the bike path symbols on the road and stuck up a few signs. But they did get a grant from DC for having bike lanes.

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