site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30422 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 8, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Probably not because the social cost of the arson facilitated by those items probably doesn't outweigh the value we get from their benign applications.

I'd like to see you apply this calculation to firearms.

Given that the uses for hunting, sport/recreation, and the occasional self-defense are necessarily far greater than the uses for criminal activity.

There are approximately 15 licensed million hunters in the U.S.

10 million who do sport shooting (these numbers probably overlap).

So on the one hand we've got literal millions who use guns for 'benign' applications (assuming you don't have some serious objection to hunting).

On the other other, around 50,000 deaths/year which involve firearms in some way.

So what would you estimate the 'social cost' of those 15 or so million people who use firearms without harming anyone being unable to hunt is?

This is excluding DGUs, now.

Not clear to me why we think it absurd to ban matches (50,000 burns require hospitalization every year, 4,500 burn deaths per year) just because it makes it harder for people to light candles, but civilian-owned guns are somehow inherently dangerous to even own.

and in consequence the expected utility for even a legal owner is negative given the facilitation of an easier suicide, accidents etc.

This seems obviously confounded by factors that contribute to suicide and accidents independently of gun ownership.

So I find it doubtful that for the median gun owner it turns into a net negative, even if we see on the lower end of the bell curve that accidents and suicide are an actual risk.

In the same way that owning a pool makes it WAY more likely you or a loved one will die of drowning, and yet there are fairly easy precautions one can take to mitigate those chances (learn to swim, learn CPR, fence in the pool, provide life vests) to almost zero.

So what would you estimate the 'social cost' of those 15 or so million people who use firearms without harming anyone being unable to hunt is?

Hard to say of course, but bear in mind none of the potential restrictions mooted by any mainstream figures in the U.S. would seriously damage hunting or shooting for sport in the U.S. After all we still have both of those in Britain.

This seems obviously confounded by factors that contribute to suicide and accidents independently of gun ownership.

So I find it doubtful that for the median gun owner it turns into a net negative, even if we see on the lower end of the bell curve that accidents and suicide are an actual risk.

In the same way that owning a pool makes it WAY more likely you or a loved one will die of drowning, and yet there are fairly easy precautions one can take to mitigate those chances (learn to swim, learn CPR, fence in the pool, provide life vests) to almost zero.

We make policy for aggregates, not individuals. Whether for some people owning a gun might be a net positive is irrelevant, society-wide they seem to do more harm than good which is the relevant point.

or shooting for sport in the U.S.

Can you tell me what you think shooting for sport looks like?

Because substantially all of the restrictions proposed would impact it.

Oh I appreciate that specific restrictions might make some forms of sport shooting harder or impossible, the point is that in general it could continue as a widespread activity, just in slightly altered form.

Right, so we're banning all soccer balls with a diameter under 6 feet. What? The sport can continue, just in a slightly altered form.

If there was some very compelling public health rationale for banning larger footballs I would say that yes that would be a reasonable line of argument.

Public health does not override the rights of the citizens.

This is hardly the place for a discussion of a topic so broad as the 'rights of citizens', but suffice to say that we do that all the time and always have done.

That we have done so does not justify it.

It means we were wrong to do so and should repent.

After all we still have both of those in Britain.

You also still have mass shootings in Britain even with the limited type of firearms you can legally acquire there (.22s are still plenty fatal if you put enough of them into the target; that's fundamentally what buckshot is), to say nothing of more general mass casualty events typically involving trucks. Of course, you'll never fully ban shotguns, because you have enough politicians and backers that have ludicrously-expensive H&H products to get away with that- I don't believe that this is "making policy for aggregates, not individuals".

In fact, Britain appears to be so incredibly violent that the nation takes placing a bunch of restrictions on kitchen knives seriously as well and has significant numbers of soldiers and heavily-armed paramilitary on patrol (more liberal European countries have this as well, of course). Maybe it's a good thing the gun law in that nation in particular is largely "no".

You also still have mass shootings in Britain even with the limited type of firearms you can legally acquire there

A few per decade.

All I can do is once again point you to the literature on the effectiveness of gun control measures, which you haven't engaged with.

Not clear to me why we think it absurd to ban matches (50,000 burns require hospitalization every year, 4,500 burn deaths per year) just because it makes it harder for people to light candles, but civilian-owned guns are somehow inherently dangerous to even own.

Dont forget to add in the deaths from pools. Or seed oils.

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