site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   23120 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 16, 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.

This seems like a misrepresentation or at least to have some logical leaps.

My objections:

  • It's perfectly fine to hold those beliefs and still want accountability for a drug company that does bad things. Someone's desired counterfactual isn't limited to a binary.
  • "I think these firms should do less to limit beneficial healthcare and do more to prevent harmful healthcare" isn't some gotcha where you should object "Well do you want more or fewer free markets"
  • The tradeoff between good-quality tested opioids and sketchy street drugs isn't real. I can't pull them up right now but throughought the 2010s the economist had like 4 studies cited that showed about 60% of people dependent on street drugs (from someone else's prescription to black tar heroin) started out on prescription pain killers like oxycontin.

I don't understand your first objection. There were a lot of "beliefs" hinted at in my post, not all of which I hold or think someone else holds.

Your second objection seems to entirely make my point. What counts as "beneficial" vs. "harmful" seems to significantly hinge on other politics. People select politics first, then determine "beneficial" or "harmful", and then decide whether something is 'corruption' or 'negotiation'... or whether it's 'righteous gatekeeping' or 'evil profit-seeking gatekeeping'. Your politics are baked in to your statements, which is why you think other politics can be just brushed aside and totally ignored. Moreover, because we've essentially nationalized policy (while retaining nominal private ownership), the entire arena is fundamentally a matter of confused national-scale politics, rather than distributed optimization to local and personal values.

Your third objection, and the responses it's already produced, absolutely seals my point. People are divided about the politics, which leads to all sorts of confusion in trying to 'design' a nationalized system with clear purpose and vision, instead leaving the matter ripe for all sorts of politicized framing effects.

I don't see the use in framing common disagreements between different groups as some sort of political contradiction. Wanting more government regulation of the border or guns, but also wanting fewer EPA requirements for food or DEI requirements isn't a contradiction or a gotcha, it's a valid expression of people's political desires. Similarly, wanting healthcare but not have addictive or unnecessary procedures or medicine pushed on you is totally acceptable. I reject the notion that it's just a matter of politics as a broad claim you've made. I concede there is a large amount of political finagling and ideology in many of these decisions (whether by doctors, congress, hospitals, the federal executive), but I also believe you could parse out 60-75% of policy as being harmful or helpful to individuals and have broad (over 75%) public agreement.

political contradiction ... contradiction or a gotcha ... valid expression of people's political desires

I have no idea what you're on about. I'm not claiming a contradiction or gotcha. I'm not claiming anything is invalid.

studies cited that showed about 60% of people dependent on street drugs (from someone else's prescription to black tar heroin) started out on prescription pain killers like oxycontin.

Note that this does not mean that they started with painkillers prescribed to them for legitimate pain issues. It's likely that many (most?) started with opioids that were stolen, diverted, or obtained for recreational purposes through doctor-shopping.

Yes, I flagged that in brackets.

The tradeoff between good-quality tested opioids and sketchy street drugs isn't real. I can't pull them up right now but throughought the 2010s the economist had like 4 studies cited that showed about 60% of people dependent on street drugs (from someone else's prescription to black tar heroin) started out on prescription pain killers like oxycontin.

Basically the drug warriors were pushing that line. But if you follow the references back, they end up at a study of street heroin users which determined that some large percentage started on prescription drugs.... but usually not their own.

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