site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35347 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 3, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is there a way to give informed consent here that isn't pressure under this rubric? Hey, if you don't get this shot, you're much more likely to die of COVID, but we're not pressuring you, right? Doctors are supposed to explain risks and benefits to the patient for any procedure; how can they provide information without "pressuring" someone?

By providing dry info. X% of people with your condition day within Y days, Z% of people who take this treatment have a A% chance of living to age B.

I guarantee you that the doctors did not do that in this case.

I guarantee you that the doctors did not do that in this case.

I'm not a doctor, and I'm certainly not an expert in communicating with people. But is that how doctors communicate in other circumstances? Does a doctor who notices that you smoke simply provide dry info and leave it at that? From what I can tell, standards around informed consent focus on whether or not information has been provided in a legible way to the patient or caregiver, not on the fastidious maintenance of strict neutrality.

I don't know how this was presented, and neither do you. But it's a stretch to say that it was presented meaningfully differently from how other medical procedures are offered, i.e., it reflects the standard of care in medicine generally. And if your issue is with the standards for informed consent, why tie it to a controversial set of procedures where the public, at least, absolutely does not agree about the risks and benefits?

In short, the dialogue looks like this to me:

A: Caroline was unethically pressured into approving puberty blockers for her child.

B: It looks like that pressure took the form of explaining risks and benefits.

A: Anything going beyond a bare recitation of the facts is undue pressure.

B: That's a standard that medicine, in general, does not meet.

It looks like either you're holding gender-nonconforming medical interventions to a uniquely high standard, or you're expressing a general issue you have with medical-ethical standards in an unnecessarily controversial manner.

I don't know how this was presented, and neither do you

I do know it wasn't presented in the way I described, because if you plug in the relevant numbers you will not get anything that can be seen as pressuring the parents into having their child take blockers.

It looks like either you're holding gender-nonconforming medical interventions to a uniquely high standard

You originally claimed it is not possible for a doctor to give information about a medicine, so the patient can give informed consent, without pressuring them into taking it. You can't criticize me for holding blockers to a higher standard, when all I did was give an example you asked for.

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