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 -
Right, but you're acting like an assessment of "low quality" is the end of conversation, and anyone disagreeing with it is automatically intellectually lazy. It would be music to my ears, because that would mean anyone doubting, say, the Cass Review, gets to have all their opinions disregarded on all other subjects, but it's just not how it works, nor is it how it should work.
You're assuming way too much about me and what I'm saying. My only point is that people disagreeing with you on this aren't automatically intellectually lazy.
Even more interesting that you mentioned Cass Review. It is a high quality review that states that the evidence we have is of low quality. Anyone can see that. A lot of people try to argue against it by saying that the review is of low quality but I can only see (at least in 99% of conversation) bias and/or intellectual laziness.
Why am I obliged to engage in conversion with those people? I don't want to and I don't need to. It is not a productive use of my time. I would better discuss this with my peers who have put a lot of work to learn how to evaluate evidence.
I have not participated in discussions about Cass Review but certain groups of experts have. They certainly didn't start with consensus. The fact that puberty blockers in the UK were prescribed to minors shows that. But eventually experts have cooperated and come to the conclusion that based on current evidence or rather due to lack of good evidence we cannot allow puberty blockers to minors except for clinical studies.
This was brought to the attention of the UK government which now has made a law based on recommendation of experts. My duty is only to follow the law, otherwise I will be breaking the law, I could be held criminally liable and lose my pharmacist licence etc.
Again, I can participate in discussions but I don't see what's the point. The expert group suggestion seems reasonable and the law is reasonable. That's how it works. In fact, I had a case when I had to approve dispensing of puberty blocker in a pharmacy and it immediately reminded me of Cass Review.
Maybe you mean that sometimes experts need to sell their ideas to the politicians and society who are not able to evaluate anything. But that is a completely different thing from what I am doing here. I am not trying to convince anyone to vote for me or even spread my ideas. I mostly want to learn something interesting and insightful and share the same to others (if I have something to share).
More options
Context Copy link
Low quality is low quality. Not much point to consider such evidence. I understand that when we have nothing else, we catch to straws but we shouldn't really.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link