site banner
PaperclipPerfector  13d ago (text post)   30520 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 9, 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.

I've never seen it broken out in a way that granular but I expect a bunch of it would be line items like "secretary to assistant infection control nurse" and you'd be like "who the fuck is that and what do they do" to which my response would be "well I don't know who that person is, but I know the infection control nurse is the person who goes around cancelling all of our tests that will show that the patient got a hospital acquired infection" (through nobody's fault) because the government doesn't like when we have those.

The sheer number of admin and regulatory compliance people who don't really do anything has massively ballooned.

It's very much like universities.

"well I don't know who that person is, but I know the infection control nurse is the person who goes around cancelling all of our tests that will show that the patient got a hospital acquired infection" (through nobody's fault)

"this is the person who goes around committing what amounts to fraud because we don't want to get caught having caused an infection" (which is totally our fault, they got it while they were in our care). What do you think this sort of a thing sounds like to other people?

I mean it's nuts and physicians hate it.

They do generally have paper thin justifications to avoid it being outright fraud but it is stupid and everyone outside of administration acknowledges that.

It's also a classic "juke the stats" type government/regulation outcome.

but I know the infection control nurse is the person who goes around cancelling all of our tests that will show that the patient got a hospital acquired infection" (through nobody's fault) because the government doesn't like when we have those.

First thought: How is this a thing?

Second thought: Oh yeah, economics. Of course this is a thing.

Third thought: Can we shoot these people instead?

Fourth thought: It totally was somebody’s fault. I realize that meticulous clinical hygiene is hard. People will still die if you screw it up.

OH LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT WELLNESS MODULES.

Problem: Our resident physicians keep killing themselves.

Solution: Make them come in at 6am on their day off to spend 2 hours filling out un-skippable e-learning trainings reminding them that they should sleep. The person who worked a 24 hour shift over night and is being prevented from going home starts screaming incoherently. Then the hospital hires a "chief wellness officer" at executive pay scale who comes up with more wellness modules. If you are lucky they throw the residents a pizza party while they are working and the nurses eat their pizza.

Sorry one of the other comments made me think about wellness modules.

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