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 -
?? You were advocating for a lower verdict, not for none at all. And this entire thread has been about the amount of the verdict.
Anyhow, you think are not seeing it action yet because you aren't familiar with how these things work; judges reduce excessive verdicts every day of the week. But not until a motion is made, argued and heard. It's not going to happen overnight.
No? I can prefer a lower verdict to a higher verdict, and none at all to a lower verdict.
That's great. Considering how ridiculous the jury's verdict is, the judge has a long way to go here.
Yes, of course you can, but the point is, you weren't. So when you said, "Nothing in this case indicates a system or society that is "designed to obtain exactly the outcome for which [I am] advocating", which is a general tolerance for a wide range of opinions," that made no sense.
I don't see how it makes "no sense" that the order of outcomes which best achieves a general tolerance for a wide range of opinions here is quite obviously none at all > lower verdict > higher verdict. Seems like pretty basic logic to me.
It doesn't make sense to argue in favor of A, get a response pointing out that the current law is perfectly consistent with A, and then say, "how can you say that current law is consistent with B?"
Let's say a jury renders a verdict that declares that 5,000 puppies must be brutally executed (ignoring the likely illegality of this for the sake of the hypothetical). Now imagine this dialogue:
Person A: Wow, that's a ridiculous amount of puppies. We really need a society that values adorable puppies more.
Person B: Don't worry as there are statutes for reducing excessive puppy executions. It could very well be far less than 5,000 puppies executed.
Person A: Well, okay, but that's still pretty bad.
Person B: Wow, you're making no sense now. You were advocating for less puppies being executed, not no puppies. Why aren't you happy?
Your objection makes you resemble Person B in this dialogue in my evaluation. Do you see why you might perhaps sound unreasonable?
Dude, I said: "Yes, of course you can, but the point is, you weren't." My point is not that your statements are logically inconsistent, but rather that your statement made no sense as a response to what I said. For example"
In particular, unlike Person A, you did NOT say, "but that's still pretty bad." The conversation was: You: the monetary award should be reduced. Me: The system is set up to do exactly what you want. You: What do you mean? I think the jury should have found in favor of Jones. That is fine, but it is not what you initially claimed. So, do you see why you might perhaps sound unreasonable?
I'm sorry dude, but you are exhibiting exactly why the "rationalist" community often has a terrible reputation for autistic (and usually incorrect/nonsensical, as in this case) nitpicking and an inability to comprehend basic context, and given that trying to make somebody so committed to being so dense understand is usually as annoying as trying to shave a tiny but ornery chihuahua's balls without hurting them, especially on this site with its rules, I'm afraid that I can't engage with you any further.
But I'll give you one hint: I never once said that the monetary award should be merely reduced. That is simply not in my posts at all. I know, because I just reread them to see if maybe I gave that misleading impression. Rather, I merely expressed that I thought the verdict was too much, and you somehow autistically interpreted that to mean that I could only have a reduced verdict and not no verdict (or no case at all) as my highest preference, even though that doesn't fit any reasonable model of human behavior.
You do realize that people who prefer less X often prefer no X even to that, and that this is not any sort of a contradiction even if your mental model is that their prior statements only implied less X, right? Again, that's basic behavior. If someone says "There's hundreds of roaches in here!", reducing the number to only 50 probably isn't going to completely satisfy them still. There's a good chance they prefer zero. You might disagree, but their response isn't surprising or nonsensical.
I am not attempting to sneer or insult you at all when I link this (especially since, like most people on this site, I'm sure I'm not entirely off the spectrum, though not to the level demonstrated): https://exceptionalindividuals.com/candidates/neurodiversity-resources/neurodiversity-quizzes/aspergers-quiz-test/ You're displaying a genuinely high and concerning degree of communicative obtuseness.
TBH, I think you are the one who is exhibiting those tendencies, when you say, "I didn't say the award should be reduced! I said it was too much."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link