This is the Quality Contributions Roundup. It showcases interesting and well-written comments and posts from the period covered. If you want to get an idea of what this community is about or how we want you to participate, look no further (except the rules maybe--those might be important too).
As a reminder, you can nominate Quality Contributions by hitting the report button and selecting the "Actually A Quality Contribution!" option. Additionally, links to all of the roundups can be found in the wiki of /r/theThread which can be found here. For a list of other great community content, see here.
This month we have another special AAQC recognition for @drmanhattan16. This readthrough of Helen Joyce’s Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality garnered several AAQC nominations throughout the month:
Part 1 – The History of Transgenderism
Part 2 – The Causes and Rationalization of Transgenderism
Part 3 – How Transgenderism Harms Women And Children
Part 4 – How Transgenderism Took Over Institutions And How Some Women Are Fighting Back
Part 5 – Conclusion and Discussion
Now: on with the show!
Quality Contributions Outside the CW Thread
Contributions for the week of December 26, 2022
Contributions for the week of January 2, 2023
- "The Penfield Mood Organ and Me: Are We Already Transhuman by Chemistry and Mnemonics Rather than Engineering?"
Contributions for the week of January 9, 2023
Contributions for the week of January 16, 2023
-
"Since the war has started, Ukraine has gotten not only increased aid, but increased attention and various oversight mechanisms."
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
That's a facade, though. I mean, there are legitimate questions to ask about any historical event, but an ideologue isn't really just disputing one specific thing for the purpose of correcting the historical record.
I will ever return to creationists, because the analogies are so apt. Well-rehearsed creationists will point out missing intermediate fossil records, nitpick theories like punctuated equilibrium, and shift the argument to abiogenesis, and claim that they are just trying to get the science right and expose flaws in evolutionary theory. The problem is that no amount of proof, no discovery of missing links, no falsifiable claims or application of Bayesian reasoning, would ever sway them, because their actual position is that God created life and evolution is an atheistic lie. Likewise, the actual position of "revisionists" is that Jews are a tribal enemy and that the Holocaust is a weapon that needs to be neutralized.
Ask a creationist or a Holocaust denier what evidence would convince them they are wrong, and they'll describe something they know is impossible to produce. The only reason for debating them is because without opposition they could take in the credulous and ill-informed. But one shouldn't make the mistake of thinking you're engaged in actual, honest intellectual debate with someone who is immutably motivated by belief in Biblical inerrancy or anti-Semitism, respectively.
Amadan explicitly picked out creationists, not evolution skeptics. The motive is in the name, they explicitly believe that evolution is a complete lie, but pick holes to claim they are just skeptics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link