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 -
He is right that the system has failed to promote life expectancy that goes along with the spending.
United Healthcare isn't the culprit for life expectancy being low but food industry, or Purdue pharma would be corporations that have played a role in that. The Sacklers are a target that genuinely carry blame for falling life expectancies.
Dunno how damaging or helpful the covid vaccines have been. Undoubtedly the people involved with the covid research problem have contributed to falling life expectancies, but certainly not just in the USA.
It is important to note that someone who commits an act of violence because X reasons might have a point about X reasons being a thing, and a genuine problem regardless of whether they should or shouldn't have committed an act of violence. We shouldn't be deprived of the right of as a society of freely discussing and dealing with X.
Indeed, minor acts of violence are a much smaller issue than not being free to deal with X problem, whether is reasons for falling life expectancy.
Now, it is also possible that American healthcare is wasteful in terms of $ but that isn't the reason for life expectancy differences. I believe it is also true that American pharma companies are very innovative and they also make most of their money from the American market.
It is also possible that united healthcare by denying disproportionate insurance claims has played a role in life expectancy problems even if not the major role which has to do more with opioids, obesity and therefore food, how active Americans are, and maybe for blacks gun violence is also a factor.
Regarding violence as a response to big problems or crimes. I would neither encourage it but nor categorically discourage violence from ever occurring as a response to perceived crimes.Thomas Jefferson had a point that fear of reprisals is one way to get rulers to be accountable. Those in charge must be afraid of screwing up. But obviously it can go out of hand and we can have people harming people they falsely blame, in addition to it being unsuitable in circumstances for them to take matters over their own hand over the justice system. But you should be afraid that if you screw up people would put a magnifying glass over it, and you will be held accountable, one way or the other, rather than assured that bad actors will cover it up.
Too much fear of never allowing backlash leads to worse evils being allowed than anything that would be immoral from the backlash. It also leads to a lack of recognition that punishment can be proportionate and good at those who deserve it and to people actually supporting evil acts and evil doers. Important to note that much of the fearmongering about violent backlash is also pretextual and it is about protecting reputations of wrongdoers. It is about wrongdoers who deserve a negative reputation to keep getting away with it. Which they would have more difficulty to do so if their reputation is sufficiently negative.
Indeed, there are in fact cases of child rapists being shot by the parents of the victims. I sympathize fully with the parents. Especially in cases where the justice system did not punish the child rapists adequately, or at all.
A strong emotional reaction on issues that are moral and it is logical and reasonable to strongly care about the injustice of the issue is a virtue. While the unemotional person who chooses to side with corrupt people who are doing something unjust is someone who exhibits a vice. To be fair, we tend to see emotional haters of people who oppose the regime who sometimes try to present themselves as neutral and not strongly ideologically motivated. But they are trying to push for an apathetic society. They promote compliance and passivity as virtues. An apathetic compliant society which doesn't rock the boat about their rulers decisions isn't good, just like a society that people are in a frenzy about wrong theories like a society under communist revolution isn't good neither. So you need a combo of passion with correct instincts and relatively accurate understanding.
It make sense though that in a corrupt society, the corrupt elites would try to fund and support groups that advance the notion that people shouldn't rock the boat and avoid being "psychotic conspiracy theorists" to blame for oh no a possible violent backlash. At the same time that the elites who own media, or journalists and editors are inciting violence by inflaming the passions of blacks against the whites and the police, and nobody other than me and a few other people, say that for such purposes these people who are the problem through their gross exaggerations, need to be removed from power and the position to push their lies.
Like the pharmaceutical industry shouldn't get people addicted to opioids, the journalist proffession should genuinely speak truth to power, and not promote anti-white, pro black criminal lies. In events were there are people of different races that one kills the other, should try to side with what is correct based on the facts.
People should care and people in positions of power should feel the precariousness of them screwing up or getting involved with nefarious plots that harm the public. Like conducting biological weapons research that could lead to epidemics if there is a leak. Or trying to sell addictive opioids to people and present it as good remedy to pain. And various more.
Fear of backlash for wrongdoing is good and should exist in combination with the inevitable backlash and punishment towards those who genuinely deserve it though.
You are very biased in favor of defending the system.
Ah yes more censorship of problems and calling everyone bad names and conspiracy theorists. I think we need the opposite, an intolerance towards those who want to censor any dissent and discussion of real problems, and also a growing attitude towards them that people who want to do that aren't protecting society but are badly motivated. Usually they are partisans in favor of the group they defend from any criticism and hostile and out to get the kind of people they call conspiracy theorists and other labels, as well as the groups the later are defending.
Of course, while the "no problem here whatsoever" bias of those who are motivated to throw everything under the carpet, enforce a stupid party line by shaming and intimidating people into silence is the wrong approach, I wouldn't suggest we censor people who correctly show that some things are taken out of proportion.
It is also possible for people who get some things wrong and are biased in one or another direction also get things right.
In any case, if the goal is to have a limited discussion that excludes people, for the purposes of improving outcomes, regime pro censorship types who always overreach, and usually slander and find some excuse to censor others must be the kind of people who are targets of censorship, and of being labeled with a nasty label. Dunno what the equivalent of conspiracy theorist would be. Albeit conspiracy theorist is a ridiculous label that people shouldn't use because by using puts you in the company of CIA types who want to suppress genuine conspiracies and to stupefy discussion. It is obvious that it often used not merely to criticize inherently unreasonable and ridiculous theories but to suppress actual truths of what groups have genuinely done and do and to suppress discussion for any and all of the wrongdoing and even plots for the party they protect and to shut up any and all legitimate complaints. Usually in favor of different factions influential in the regime. Indeed regime supporters seem to try to promote the party line that there are no nefarious or criminal plots going on among people with power which is just false and ridiculous.
So, they should be excluded. Conversely a decent number of the people they would exclude must be allowed to have access to influence and to decision making discourse. I dunno who is going to be the gatekeeper of this, but it can't be the current figures who overreach by nature and would actually would be the targets of censorship.
The aspiring political commissars of the current regime that are defending zealously its conduct are in fact people who both take the freedom of others away, and create a political environment that also takes away peoples freedom and brings forth disaster by fanatically pushing that doing things that are bad is actually good. And not just good but unquestionably good. They try to make only one way to operate as unquestionable since only X bad labeled people would think otherwise. And of course they remove dissenters from platforms or reduce their reach. Their censorship and manipulation of discussion is dangerous and destructive, and so I actually not just as a "rules applied fairly", in favor of actual suppression and punishment of such political commissars. We will be both freer and have better without the regime political commissars.
In all honesty, in the way I see it, freedom is valuable, but I am also interested in the duty of people following the role they have in the manner they should do so, within reasonable expectations. That can constrain some freedoms but also is part of certain freedoms and means we ought to suppress those who constrain them. For example the freedom to criticize wrongdoing towards those who violate their duty in an important position. Their duty is about what role their position serves in society and at least not screwing things up. It isn't the cultural leftist dogma, nor is the ethical obligation of a company to only make money regardless of how they make the money. That is if you make money by making the public's health worse off, and making them addicts, you are engaged in wrongdoing.
One of the issues that mustn't be suppressed is accountability towards those who genuinely deserve it.
While I wouldn't be in favor of delusional commies harming people who aren't to blame, the Sacklers and those who collaborated with them haven't been held sufficiently accountable. There is too much "lets forget the old thing and care about current issue" while ideally society should remember, go back and punish people who are responsible for significant enough crimes. And also remove from decicion making positions people who screwed up. Some people lower on the food chain who for example protected people like Anthony Fauci might deserve not to go to prison but to be notorious and have a negative reputation and lose their position, while others deserve much harsher punishment.
The biological weapon program research backers and/or gains of function research, and all sorts of bad actors of the covid episode haven't been held sufficiently accountable. Including those who overly censor discussion on such issues, which must be done today as well. We also have no assurance that their disasters wouldn't repeat. So discussion should be done for the purpose of uncovering genuine problems and those to blame, and where sufficient blame, for the purposes of holding them accountable. Certainly there can be changes without punishing people, but there also issues where sufficient crimes or huge errors have been made. Accountability of genuinely blameworthy parties is necessary and good.
The irony in facing accusations like this is that I irrationally refuse to sign up for any company like UH or Cigna or whatever because I find them too triggering to work with and instead use some low-cost possibly-a-scam health ministry and just pay out of pocket the rest of the time.
I'm also a rare person who has experienced health care in multiple US states, including extreme Cadillac insurance and also Medicaid, and also "socialized medicine" in countries like the UK and Italy. At the end of this I'm generally burned out and annoyed by simplistic rationalizations and explanations.
The system sucks. Everywhere. In the sense that it's run by humans and have to deal with impossible demands and mis-aligned incentives. I don't think simple-minded analyses move the needle in a helpful direction. In fact they're usually wrong and sometimes just get people killed!
I was not calling for censorship.
More options
Context Copy link
Beautifully balanced and thoughtful comment here. Thank you for taking the time to write it out.
I 100% agree that pharma and food industry companies are more to blame than health insurers, but I also find health insurance to be detestable as well.
Your point about violence sometimes being necessary is well taken also. Rulers nowadays have little to no skin in the game, and they need to be reminded of consequences from time to time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link