site banner
PaperclipPerfector  20d ago (text post)   30956 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 2, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't support killing people, but if I did support killing people, "health insurance company CEO" would be right at the top of the list of people I wouldn't feel sorry for.

Honestly, fuck this sentiment and this expression of it. I’d be fine if this one joined your mountain of deleted comments.

It’s this mind-killing hatred (reminiscent of the shrieks of greed-flation when straightforward market mechanics and a hostile political environment drove up gas prices a couple years ago) that

  1. got this husband and father killed in cold blood and

  2. is preventing the levelheaded disentangling of the completely fucked incentives created by the current level of intervention currently being inflicted on a service industry that otherwise could have been commoditized by now.

straightforward market mechanics

Shutting down the economy and fucking the global economy over "covid", trash anti-fosil fuel economy politics isn't "straightforward market mechanics".

There are a lot more people closer to power than "health insurance company CEO", I would wish grave bodily harm to.

This guy was killed for "personal" reasons, not hatred of people in power.

I feel the exact amount of sympathy for this guy as he felt for any of the thousands of people who died or went without needed medical care due to the rejections the company he ran sent due to spurious reasons.

Now now bud, if you're going to ACTUALLY mean this, you better also account for the thousands or hundreds of thousands of people whose medical care was covered and lives were saved because the company paid for the necessary treatment or cure.

If you're already saying they're responsible for the lives of customers, have to give them credit just as much as blame.

you better also account for the thousands or hundreds of thousands of people whose medical care was covered and lives were saved because the company paid for the necessary treatment or cure.'

You build a thousand bridges and no one calls you bridge builder but fuck one kid.......

Now now bud

Sir Isaac Newton

as if killing him will fix healthcare. Sharehodlers would have to agree to reducing profits, which would not happen. the stock would crash and he would be ousted and replaced by someone else.

If the next CEO is scared of comeuppance, it doesn't matter what the shareholders think or do.

You see the same sort of logic in Meixco's political class. Somebody has to want to be in charge, and if being in charge puts a target on your back, it gets harder to find people willing to lead.

Yeah money is pretty useless if you are in that position unless you're getting the kind that spends in hell.

To play devil's advocate an argument could be made that shareholders are probably only important to a CEO or any major corporate leader if they don't believe their lives are in danger it is Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Any CEO they could hire would just choose to screw the shareholders to mitigate even a perceived 10 or 20 percent chance they would be killed. Once you're already a multimillionaire, it is extremely difficult to induce someone to risk there lives for more money.

I feel the exact amount of sympathy for this guy as he felt

So, an amount you're completely ignorant of?

What did the insurance company that you manage do to save these people you're fantasizing about?

So, an amount you're completely ignorant of?

I guess this is true but I would also guess that if the amount were quantifiable and would be made known to the public in a weeks time there would be a pretty healthy prediction market over the next 7 days with "absolutely none at all" being by far the odds on favorite.

Thank you for quoting it, I know it's distasteful but I think it's necessary to maintain coherence and trust.

Honestly, fuck this sentiment and this expression of it. I’d be fine if this one joined your mountain of deleted comments.

Fair enough. I regretted posting it any way, the sentiment was unacceptable. We have profound disagreements as to the problems with the healthcare system, but I should have expressed them more constructively.

Glad to see you acknowledge the utility of deleting regrettable comments, even if just this one time.

Your other comments are great and valuable which is why I get frustrated when you delete them.

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