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 -
Water fluoridation is one of those things that always astounds me and reminds me how completely different the past was, politically and in terms of social cohesion and trust in science, experts and all that. The idea that a few scientists could run a few relatively short-term experiments (just a few years) and see a relatively minor benefit (tooth cavities hardly seems like an existential crisis) and based on this get the government to introduce a chemical to the water supply nationwide without facing widespread riots or resistance is just insane to me. I'm not trying to claim that fluoride is harmful or anything like that, just that the public seems to have had such complete trust in politicians, scientists, public health officials, bureaucrats and the media to accept it is an amazing demonstration of how different things are. It is an oft raised lament that "we don't build anything anymore" or that we aren't capable of the large-scale works of the past and I think this is directly related to that. I think there needs to be a certain level of blind trust in authorities to enable that which is a bit of a two edged sword.
It is becoming very hard for me personally to reconcile my lament that "we don't build anything anymore" with my own anti-conformist and stubborn opposition to things like covid lockdowns and covid vaccination as I think they are in direct opposition to some extent. As I've gotten older I have come to believe that public consensus and trust in institutions is more important than the actual content of that consensus or the 'correctness' of those experts and institutions, but at the same time I remain skeptical and stubborn. Does anyone else relate to this conflicted feeling?
In the particular case of fluoridating water, the ruling elite had a good story. Scientists knew that naturally occurring levels of fluoride varied from place to place. Did it matter? They did the epidemiology thing and decided that less than one part per million made tooth decay noticeably worse. More than four parts per million caused dental fluorosis, but nothing else showed up strongly with natural levels of fluoridation. So topping up fluoride to bring low fluoride water up to one part per million seemed super safe; lots of people were already living with 1ppm. And had been for their entire lives. It was a rare case where we have data (albeit epidemiological) on all cause mortality, due to pre-existing "natural experiments".
Your confusion is the result of a garbled account of events. That is bad in itself, but I want to make the case that it is important to say that "topping up" and "adding" are different and that the claim that we "add" fluoride to the water supply is a lie.
First I will offer paradigms of "topping up" and "adding" and then make my case that things can go horribly wrong if we tolerate people confusing them.
Topping up Measure the level. If it comes in at 0.5 ppm, add enough to increase the level by 0.5 ppm. Measure again. If it is in the range 0.9 to 1.1 ppm declare victory. If outside that range, find out why, and adjust appropriately.
Adding Don't bother measuring, or if some-else has measured, just ignore it. Add enough to increase the level by 1 ppm. Continue to fail at measuring and be smug that the level is at least 1 ppm because our addition guarantees that out-come.
Now picture a town debating water fluoridation. Why? Well, Mr Bad Guy hopes to get kick backs from the contracts for fluoridation equipment and chemicals. He persuades his fellow citizens to top up fluoride levels at public expense. They vote for it. Mr Bad Guy sets it in motion. The measured natural level turns out to be 1.3 ppm. There is nothing to be done. No contracts, no kick backs. Mr Bad Guy looks around and notices that nobody is watching. He arranges contracts for equipment and chemicals to add enough fluoride to increase the levels by 1 ppm. He pockets his bribe money. Fluoride levels increase to 2.3 ppm. Mr Bad Guy feels safe. No-one will notice 2.3 ppm and if he falls under suspicion for corruption, he can always say that he misunderstood.
Later Dr Nerd measures the fluoride and checks the records of the old measurements. Dr Nerd is unhappy about the waste of public money, or about the dangers of fluoride, take your pick. He tries to "blow the whistle". But what language does he speak? If he uses the vernacular he complains that we are adding fluoride to the water supply and we shouldn't be doing that, we should instead be adding fluoride to the water supply [sic]. Nobody understands his point. So he switches to Nerd-speak and complains that we are adding fluoride to the water supply when we should be topping up; very different. Topping up is free! But the towns-folk don't speak Nerd-speak, so Dr Nerd still fails to make himself understood.
Talking about topping up fluoride levels using the word adding is bad. It covers up corruption and is why we cannot have nice things.
More options
Context Copy link
Every damn day. I have an uncomfortable blend of paleoconservativism and libertarianism in my blood, and I've already resigned myself to the reality that I'll never be able to resolve the conflicts between the two. The best way I can cope with the conflict is to follow my gut moral intuition when I approach an issue where they conflict.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. The decay in the trust of institutions in the western world is already a massive problem , that will only get worse. You are exactly on point in my opinion. Trust might matter more then absolute truth . I am certain that lack of trust precludes substance and correctness in the long term. Lack of trust in each other and by extension in the institutions that govern us , renders us ineffective at best.
More options
Context Copy link
No. Reality matters. A consensus contrary to reality is a disaster in the making, and trust in untrustworthy institutions is foolish and counterproductive.
I have a big issue with your statement. It sounds correct but in my mind doesn't stand up to scrutiny. What is reality? Who decides that exactly? How can you decide whether an institution , whether that is the police or whoever , did their job correctly? Are you capable or even interested in judging each and every move they make ? And what do you do with that judgement? Do you just use your judgement ( whether right or wrong) to fuel hatred and distrust? Because you are probably not using it to make a a practical change. So what is it? What is the goal? The cornerstone of society is trust. Trust has to be blind up to a logical point.
Yes, but I'm not concerned about whether it stands up to scrutiny in your mind; I am only concerned about whether it stands up to scrutiny in reality.
Let us say the institutions claim there is definitely no train coming down a set of railroad tracks. Reality is what decides whether someone standing on the tracks when that train arrives gets crushed or not.
More options
Context Copy link
That which does not go away when you stop believing in it.
No one decides it. It happens regardless. If you do a bad job planting your crops, people starve. If you do a bad job enforcing the law, chaos and violence reigns. If you do a bad job protecting your borders, foreign armies victimize your populace.
For the police, you derive a general understanding of what their job is by examining the laws they're supposed to enforce, and their actual enforcement of those laws, measure it versus the costs of maintaining them and the general realities that add friction to the system.
Random sampling and statistics help a great deal here.
That is certainly a thing people can do. For example, the BLM movement spun out of a coordinated attempt by Blue Tribe to generate hatred and distrust by pushing misinformation about the actual performance of law enforcement, resulting in a very large and quite partisan disconnect between public perception of police misconduct and actual rates of misconduct. And the result is that tens of thousands of additional black Americans are now dead, and hundreds of thousands of additional Black Americans have been victimized by serious crimes. That was a practical change of the sort you are describing.
Alternatively, one can do one's best to verify that trust, and to withdraw it when one perceives that it has been repeatedly violated. It is always possible that one has been deceived, though, so it's best to keep an open mind to new evidence when it arises.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link