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 -
Does covid show that? Whether one takes issue with vaccine side effects, mandates and lockdowns, not locking down or masking enough, or the FDA being too slow - these are all social or institutional failures, not nature giving us something we can't take. Success by any of those measures is within the historical norm. And if sars-cov-2 had the same transmissibility but the death rate of sars-1, the response would've been quicker and harsher - plausibly with more mistakes along the way, but it'd be effective. To say we 'exaggerate our control' understates the power large-scale technology has, and if nature bites us hard, it probably looks more like complex, avoidable errors in use of that power than just climate or disease.
I think "can't" is ambiguous here, because social and institutional failures in response to a natural challenge is exactly an example of what I would regard as a failure of control over nature. Subject to the goals and abilities of the human race, as it was in 2020, the response to covid was not one of being able to control the situation, and not one of being able to avoid massive damages of multiple kinds.
I'm just arguing 'nature' isn't an interesting part of the picture here, unless you mean nature in the sense of ''natural law' (which just means 'progressivism is bad', not that i disagree, but that's a different thing) - but if nature means forests, diseases, and climate, we're very good at controlling the former two and navigating around the third.
I would certainly say we have some control over climate and some diseases. On the other hand, if a prion starts decomposing your brain or Yellowstone erupts, the limits of our control become apparent. It's a gross simplification to say that "Humans are in control everywhere".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
yes because covid came and went at roughly equal regional levels largely irrelevant of the various costly responses at different degrees throughout the world
the institutional predictions were terrible; the institutional predictions of the effects of the various measures taken were horrible
but it wasn't; claiming sarscov2 outcomes aren't as bad as many of the flu epidemics makes a categorical error by equating it to those flus and the ability of those flus to cause damage
but covid19 never was those flus; humans not noticing it at all would have been a far superior outcome to what was done once it was noticed
and if you're comparing it to bad flu years, i.e., the "historical norm," given the costs of responses this would be an argument in favor of overestimation of human ability to control and predict outcomes
you would save humanity from covid by killing most people before covid can get them; this would be "effective" at stopping covid deaths, but it would also be far worse than covid
the effects of that would be largely predictable, too
but then again, so what? mass scale slaughter is certainly power, but it's not the sort of "control" being talked about which would be represented by the ability to accurately predict outcomes and costs for inaction or various "large scale technolog[ies]" which was a horrible failure at the institutional level
More options
Context Copy link
These are the same thing.
Indeed, which is to say "none at all".
This is completely unproven.
Social failures don't need an external stimulus from 'nature' to manifest - they can be entirely internal, see america's crime problem. And the incorrect intentions, lack of competence, or whatever that leads to internal mistakes is the same kind of thing that causes poor responses to nature's incursions. So I don't think they are the same thing - a poorly coordinated pandemic response due to democracy, media, and government is very different from a 1 in 500 year flood wiping out your citystate. The latter seems a lot more like 'we can't control nature', than the former. I think the technical or social complexity of disease eradication, which has happened, is comparable to that of a successful disease-stopping lockdown, the latter of which is admittedly unproven.
If social or institutional failures mean you can't take control what nature dishes out, you have failed to control what nature dishes out. That social failures can manifest without an external stimulus does not change that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link