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 -
Why are you trying to get me to defend a massive hidden mass between Earth and Mars? We're talking about a specific phenomenon with specific evidence. If we see all these objects violating the equivalence principle, or seemingly doing so, then that's evidence against the equivalence principle. The essence of science is making conclusions from observations, not the other way around.
We're seeing some signs of things that are not easily explained by sensor failures or human error. Maybe a single fighter aircraft has an error. But multiple radar, aircraft and visual observations shouldn't have the same error in the same time and place.
You rejected the "glitch" explanation because it explained too much. I'm trying to tell you that, "aliens can violate arbitrary laws of physics" is a vastly more powerful explanation. I.e if you reject the first you should definitely reject the latter on the same grounds.
Incompetence and malice can explain almost any failure in business. Maybe your accountant is just an idiot and missed all the money flowing away. Or maybe they're siphoning it away, maybe they're deliberately sabotaging the company. Distinguishing between them is a very important skill. You distinguish between them based upon various factors. If four accountants overlook the same erroneous transaction, it becomes more likely that they're all in on it than that they all made the same error. If you just assume 'oh well Hanlon's Razor, infinite arbitrary technical errors', you'd make a terrible spy chief.
'Aliens can reject laws of physics' does have a lot of explanatory power but it also fits better for certain scenarios, as does 'there's a conspiracy to promulgate evidence of aliens' for that matter.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link