site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32962 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 13, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Double blind ones looking at probability of infection as compared with zero, one, two (or more) previous doses?

I don't think they do, please link.

Being boosters, they are inherently looking at the effect vs the previous dose.

Its a bit ridiculous to ask for something so easily accessible on google as moderna vaccine trials.

It's a bit ridiculous to try changing the subject when called on your own bullshit asked for data to back up your unsourced assertions.

You said that if vaccines caused increased chance of health problems, there would be an obvious correlation -- and asserted that it wasn't there.

When I provided a large survey (in a young and pretty homogeneous population, btw) by a bunch of infectious disease PhDs showing... an obvious correlation between # of vaccine doses and likelihood of contracting coronavirus, instead of re-evaluating your position, you bring up different studies studying different things. (most notably conducted ~2 years ago, against a significantly different variant than the one currently circulating)

Have you considered that your position in this matter may not depend on what's true at all?

Have you considered that your position in this matter may not depend on what's true at all?

I think you should consider that your worldview is contrarian to try to make yourself feel that you're smarter than others but actually tarnishes your ability to view these things objectively. We're also approaching a tertiary problem not very related to covid here--there's enough information on the internet that you can find some information somewhere to support any contrarian claim. As a contrarian I fall into this trap sometimes, but the data on this subject is quite clear. Just to be nice, I typed in "Covid vaccine safety" into google, and copy and pasted the first link. I shouldn't really need to copy and paste links from simple google searches. If this was more niche not easily accessible data you might have a point.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/research/publications/index.html

There are only a gajillion studies in there, some of them the original double blind IIRC, and most concerns related to the vaccine have multiple studies posted under them.

There are outlier events for lots of vaccines, usually allergic/autoimmune reactions, but there is pretty clear that, no, there is not a higher mortality rate among the vaccinated. There is the opposite.

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