site banner
PaperclipPerfector  23d ago (text post)   34258 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 11, 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.

Poor Ray.

Yeah, I remember Ray talking about escape velocity. That's just a stupid belief for such a smart person. We're going the wrong direction. In the early 1900s, we were at 40% of escape velocity. It's been going down every since. Today, it's close to zero.

And the supplements... Let's say that, in isolation, each of these supplements increased lifespan by 0.2 years which is unlikely, but not impossible. But that doesn't mean that, in aggregate they will increase lifespan by 0.2*60 = 12 years. In fact, all these supplements might interact with each other in negative ways and actually be harmful in aggregate. I don't know. Neither does Ray.

But that doesn't mean that, in aggregate they will increase lifespan by 0.2*60 = 12 years. In fact, it might be worse. They might interact with each other in negative ways.

It's certainly not additive.

For someone who is so smart it's sad how he fell off into the realm of health nonsense

In the early 1900s, we were at 40% of escape velocity.

I think this is misleading. The number care about is more like "life expectancy conditioned on being a healthy adult", which I don't think was changing much back then, nor has changed much recently. But probably is still going up a little if you control for demographics, which, in my limited understanding, have been changing in the West to mask (small) improvements in longevity.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "healthy young adult" (healthy young adults by definition die rarely), but life expectancy at every age has increased since 1900:

https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages

Life expectancy at 20 years old in 1900 was just under 65 and is now over 80.

Whoops, thanks for correcting me and for providing a link.

The number care about is more like "life expectancy conditioned on being a healthy adult", which I don't think was changing much back then.

This is not accurate. In the year 1900, mortality was much higher than today at every age range. Healthy adults were constantly being felled in the prime of life by bacterial infections or infectious diseases.

But yes, there was no true escape velocity then or now. The gains were all in helping people realize their potential, but the potential itself remains fixed.

Oh, I stand corrected.

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