site banner
PaperclipPerfector  17d ago (text post)   30838 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 am not lying about which numbers you are asking for. I have responded to the numbers you have asked for, and explained that they don't do what you think they do and gave you a chance to correct my understanding with an example, were you able to furnish one. I even talked about numbers you didn't ask for, and explained how those might be more relevant.

I also tried to make it clear using a metaphor you have used in the past (automotive repair) and with a simplified scenario (the oranges discussion).

In both cases you accused me of "incoherent babbling."

You should not accuse someone of lying when what they are asking for is for you to explain what you mean, and to be clear what that is "explain what relevance the number you are asking for has to your decision making."

If you're going to lie about which numbers I'm asking for, we're going to sit here all day, and your final argument will be, "If I lie about what numbers you're asking for..., then..." We will just leave it there for posterity.

explain what relevance

You can't even identify the numbers we are talking about without lying. We can't get to relevance if you're that clueless/nefarious.

You can't even identify the numbers we are talking about without lying. We can't get to relevance if you're that clueless/nefarious.

If you think I have misunderstood what numbers you are asking for then it is your obligation to correct me and say "I was asking for this." I may then argue that you have changed what you are asking for (and you have), or that you have misunderstood what you are asking for (which is now my argument).

Accusing me of being wrong is reasonable and acceptable. Deciding this discussion is no longer worth your time is reasonable and acceptable. Accusing me of lying is not. If I am wrong, correct me instead of shouting "liar."

If you're going to lie about which numbers I'm asking for, we're going to sit here all day, and your final argument will be, "If I lie about what numbers you're asking for..., then..." We will just leave it there for posterity.

it is your obligation to correct me

I did that. You can go back and read it. Now, you need to show that you are capable of identifying which numbers I'm asking for.

If you're going to lie about which numbers I'm asking for, we're going to sit here all day, and your final argument will be, "If I lie about what numbers you're asking for..., then..." We will just leave it there for posterity.

I did not lie about the numbers, all numbers you have asked for do not apply to the amount you pay and cannot be used to make decisions for that reason given your initial conditions.

If you would like to you change your initial conditions you can. For instance if you do not have insurance, you may be asked to pay an amount of money, which is mostly unrelated to the numbers you were asking for at most hospitals (but not always!).

In fact let us explain health insurance.

Health insurance is not like most bills you receive in your life. The numbers only peripherally matter to the hospital and the insurance company and don't matter at all to you.

You pay an amount (typically zero in the situation you proposed) but may include a small fee called a copay instead.

Your insurance pays the rest. The hospital charges a functionally arbitrary amount. The insurance company gives them a functionally arbitrary amount back.

If you have bad insurance they may try and make you pay some amount and claim it is not covered. This number has nothing to do with the health system and the health system has highly limited ability to know about this in advance. If your plan is very bad this number may be rather high. This is the gamble you play if you have a bad plan, but how bad your plan is between you and your health insurance company.

It occurs to me now that you may be complaining about high deductible plans. If this is the case you should have just asked that. If you are getting a surgery done and the question is "is this going to fuck my deductible" the answer is almost always going to be yes. This is a reasonable question to ask and I invite you to ask your surgeon this. The answer likely be "I am not in charge of your insurance plan, but yes." It does not require an exhaustive breakdown of anything.

If you're going to lie about which numbers I'm asking for, we're going to sit here all day, and your final argument will be, "If I lie about what numbers you're asking for..., then..." We will just leave it there for posterity.

You need to show that you are capable of identifying which numbers I'm asking for.

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