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 -
There are some pretty decent videos of Bigfoot, but I have no strong opinion on their veracity. I think it would be fairly easy to fake something like that. Which goes to my point: video evidence by itself is not great evidence.
First off, I think we should all just acknowledge that cell phone cameras are not good at taking nighttime photographs at any real distance. I don't own the latest and greatest, so maybe they stole a march on me. But if hypothetically I had an encounter with a real Bigfoot (or an ape or, heck, a deer) at night and took a photo of it I would expect it would look low quality.
But secondly, by this argument, there are no weird (but perfectly mundane) things flying out of Dreamland, but there are. They just don't want to be seen, so they hang out in the middle of nowhere where the only thing likely to stumble across them are fighter jets. In fact, to use just one recent example, the US constructed and flew multiple prototypes of the Next Generation Air Dominance fighter jet for years, yet to my knowledge not a single photograph of them went public. (There are always one or two photos of "weird stuff in the sky" that circulate, so maybe one of them was a NGAD demonstrator).
If the position of XKCD is that an intelligence [including potentially our own] that can engineer a craft superior in performance (as reported by US defense officials) to conventional aircraft cannot keep a low profile in a way similar to that of our own bloated inefficient corrupt government bureaucracy can then, well, that position is very silly! Particularly when you realize that there are a couple of ways, such as lens detection or emissions detection, that would allow you to steer clear of would-be photographers, so if the 2024 iPhone - which is not an ideal platform for aviation photography - is really the threat vector you want to defend against you probably have options there, especially if you have advanced technology at your fingertips.
And indeed it turns out that if you read the actual US government reports on UFOs you'll note the term "signature management" is used. In fact one might certainly wonder why hypothetical UFOnauts would get caught on camera (or radar) at all, and if UFOs were real and preferred not to get caught on camera, one might expect that high-powered military sensors would be disproportionately likely to capture compelling evidence. And interestingly from what I recall the F/A-18s started picking up UAP on their radar regularly after receiving an upgraded AESA, which could be indica of a mundane sensor issue but also could be a sign that that a hypothetical UFO designer's signature management model was not up to the task of deceiving latest-gen hardware.
That's certainly begging the question.
The US didn't want its test flights to be seen by the public, and so tried to conceal them. Religious believers don't claim that God is deliberately concealing miracles from scientists.
I actually suspect there's a diversity of thought on this among religious believers.
But again, my understanding is that Catholics do apply something like the scientific method to miracles, so they would probably say that you are correct, and that scientists can in fact find evidence of them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link