site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   36583 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 24, 2022

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.

20
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Have we been given any other data other than seeing him speak that would reassure us as to his analytic and, shall we say 'comprehension' abilities?

If not, then why should we prevent people from 'reasoning under uncertainty' using the only reliable information they have?

I would broadly agree that sending a mentally disabled candidate to congress won't actually harm the overall function of that institution, mind you.

Re: #2, Senators spend most of their time doing everything other than speaking. And, perhaps more important is that the number one job of a Senator is to represent his constituents. Hence, if Candidate X supports policies that I disagree with, and Candidate Y supports policies that I agree with but has suffered a stroke, it is nonsensical to argue that Candidate X will do a better job as Senator than Candidate Y - from my perspective, he will do a worse job.

My dude, how do you expect a Senator to do things like direct staff, discuss possible legislation with colleagues... ANSWER E-MAILS if he is unable to effectively form sentences? You are eliding the difference between PUBLIC speaking in the actual Senate forum and all the other communication that the guy would have to do as part of his day-to-day operations. If he is to be making decisions, he has to be able to make said decisions clear to others, and that's the part he's actually struggling with.

This isn't the case of having, say, a deaf legislator who needs to use sign language to communicate but otherwise can clearly express their opinions and insights, maybe through a translator.

This is a guy who is literally having difficulty expressing his accurate internal thoughts in a coherent fashion.

Like, would you be okay sending a Senator who has Locked-in Syndrome to Congress, who could only communicate through blinking, as long as he had a long prior history of supporting your favored policies?

Do you see how someone who is otherwise 'on the fence' between the candidates policy-wise might reject the candidate who can't fully perform the job?

Like, would you be okay sending a Senator who has Locked-in Syndrome to Congress, who could only communicate through blinking, as long as he had a long prior history of supporting your favored policies?

Absolutely. Policies and voting records are king. If the alternative is a Senator who doesn't vote how I like, I'll take anyone.

Do you see how this might not satisfy a voter who is not 100% behind the policies supported by our paralyzed Senator?

i.e., an 'undecided' voter? And an undecided voter who has only moderate policy overlap with either candidate might really consider their other abilities as relevant?

Have we been given any other data other than seeing him speak that would reassure us as to his analytic and, shall we say 'comprehension' abilities? If not, then why should we prevent people from 'reasoning under uncertainty' using the only reliable information they have? ... Do you see how someone who is otherwise 'on the fence' between the candidates policy-wise might reject that person?

Sure. But that is not what OP said. OP said that his speaking ability is per se proof that he is incapable of performing his duties.

My dude, how do you expect a Senator to do things like direct staff, discuss possible legislation with colleagues... ANSWER E-MAILS if he is unable to effectively form sentences? ... This is a guy who is literally having difficulty expressing his accurate internal thoughts in a coherent fashion.

This simply begs the question. All we know is that he has difficulty expressing himself orally. We have no idea whether he can express himself in writing, nor in other ways (see eg., Steven Hawking)

Sure. But that is not what OP said. OP said that his speaking ability is per se proof that he is incapable of performing his duties.

No... but the failure to present other proof that he's suitable is concerning.

You can't update in favor of his ability to perform his duties when all you have is evidence that suggests he is less than capable.

All we know is that he has difficulty expressing himself orally. We have no idea whether he can express himself in writing, nor in other ways

These tend to be extremely correlated, though. Hawking's case was a bit different, he had ALS, which impairs all MOTOR function, but not cognition. If Fetterman has damage to the expressive speech processing part of his brain then his ability to express himself is impaired regardless of which medium is used. He can move his mouth, he can move his hands, but the information produced will not be accurate at reflecting his brain's intended message.

Quoth:

Expressive aphasia, also known as Broca's aphasia, is a type of aphasia characterized by partial loss of the ability to produce language (spoken, manual,[1] or written), although comprehension generally remains intact.

Typically, people with expressive aphasia can understand speech and read better than they can produce speech and write. The person's writing will resemble their speech and will be effortful, lacking cohesion, and containing mostly content words.

The most common cause of expressive aphasia is stroke.

And again, why don't they just present an easy proof of his capabilities to allay concerns?

I'm sitting here wondering at the possible reasons they'd put this guy on the debate stage and yet wouldn't provide any other demonstrations of his capability that would make his debate performance excusable. Can't think of a single reason to grant benefit of the doubt now.

If you can give me an obvious reason for this other than the Occam's razor "he's not able to do that, either" I'd really like it!

And let me be clear, if he is suffering from expressive aphasia, I really and truly feel immense sympathy for the man, it'd be a nightmare scenario if it were me!

No... but the failure to present other proof that he's suitable is concerning.

Yes, I already agreed that it is "concerning." But that was not the claim that OP was making.

These tend to be extremely correlated, though.

Evidence?

Hawking's case was a bit different, he had ALS, which impairs all MOTOR function, but not cognition.

I didn't say that the cases are the same, but rather I used Hawking's example as evidence that an inability to express oneself orally does not per se prove that a person has intellectual limitations.

And let me be clear, if he is suffering from expressive aphasia, I really and truly feel immense sympathy for the man

I did not think otherwise.

  1. a stroke that results in inability to speak necessarily also affects the ability to think analytically; or 2) the ability to speak is critical to the job of Senator. Neither of those things is true.

That's the claim.

The inability to speak doesn't necessarily effect the ability to think analytically, but a stroke that causes enough brain damage to effect the ability to speak could absolutely impact analytical ability as well, which would be hard to observe from the outside.

So you'd REALLY want to rule that out, and they simply haven't done so.

And as I argue here, the ability to speak IS critical to the job of Senator, to the extent he will need to communicate with colleagues, staff, and other aspects of the congressional machine in order to actually keep his office functional and not just take up space in the building.

If we think that keeping a functional office and communicating with other senators isn't part of the job of a Senator then we're probably better off replacing them ALL with deaf-mutes.

we're probably better off replacing them ALL with deaf-mutes.

Probably, yeah. We won't have to here quite so many moronic speeches and they won't take up space in presidential primaries. Sounds like a better world.

*The inability to speak doesn't necessarily effect the ability to think analytically, *

So, you are agreeing with me, because that is the only claim I took issue with.

we're probably better off replacing them ALL with deaf-mutes.

Deaf mutes are capable of communicating, and being deaf and mute is not per se a disqualification for the office of Senator.

*The inability to speak doesn't necessarily effect the ability to think analytically, *

Sure. But that's not how I'd bet if I had to put money on it. Especially given the information that he had a major stroke. I will bet $100 right now that he's got more extensive damage than merely the difficulty speaking.

Like, you want to use Stephen Hawking as a counterexample, fine. But then you have to admit that he is an outlier since in the vast, vast majority of cases where someone loses the ability to form coherent speech, they usually also have diminished cognitive capabilities.

All I'm saying is that many voters are going to use the information they can directly perceived (his difficulty forming coherent sentences) and use that as a basis to form conclusions about something they can't (his actual cognitive fitness) and may likewise have doubts about his abilities to carry out the requirements of the office.

And they're right to do so, if his campaign won't provide other proof of his current state of recovery.

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