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 -
The premise nowhere claims that small children make their own choices. You are modifying the premise and arguing in bad faith based on your modified premise.
What it says is that "everyone responding chooses." If small children are responding, then they are the ones to choose.
I'll grant that it's not 100% perfectly clear on this point, nor does it explicitly state that coordination is not allowed, but both things are heavily implied. If you think the fact that it doesn't state "coordination is not allowed" means coordination is allowed, then that's a different premise from the commonly understood one, and we should be discussing methods of coordination rather than the game theory of the premise as stated.
Link me to one other person, here or on Twitter, who thinks the premise means people can coordinate, and I'll grant that you're not totally off-base here. Still, it's pretty obvious based on the replies that my interpretation is the commonly understood one.
Link me to one three year old who took the poll.
Any three year old who took the poll would almost certainly not comment. Meanwhile, if "people can coordinate" were a common interpretation, people would certainly comment and make that known.
So, find me 100 of the latter and I'll spend a few hours looking for one of the former.
Oh no sorry, I wasn't rebutting your 'people can't coordinate' argument, I am asking you to defend the multiple times you have added small children to this thought experiment to justify the blue pill.
Arguing that there will be small children involved is not "adding" them.
My reasoning is as follows:
Little kids often click on things
Given a sufficiently large response (as is assumed everywhere else in this discussion), somewhere a kid will click on the poll
Seems pretty self-evident to me. Note that such an argument does not also claim that these kids will go on to comment on the poll. If you truly think it's so unlikely that a single kid anywhere will tap on a worldwide poll by accident, you're not worth more time anyway.
Lol so arguing about stupid hypotheticals on twitter is worth so much of your time that you are by far the most prolific poster in this thread, but I'm not worth your time because I asked you to prove one of your assertions (proof you are entirely incapable of providing)? Funny how I might be worth your time again if I randomly slapped at buttons in twitter polls though.
Probably 80% of my comments are specifically arguing that at least one person will choose blue without a perfect game theoretic understanding of the problem. This is self-evidently true to me, and it's absolutely astounding that so many people disagree. If you look at the overall discussion, probably 60% of red pill comments reference the game theory as if it's a given that literally nobody will choose blue unintentionally. I showed up to my favorite forum one day and everyone had taken crazy pills.
You know that's not why, or I wouldn't have responded to your original question. It's because you're denying an obvious truth without even the decency of giving me a reason for it.
Not incapable, just unwilling. I don't feel the need to cite my sources when I claim that the sky is blue or that kids click on buttons sometimes.
It's because you are adding elements to the hypothetical, but you only seem to notice when other people do that. There is no clicking in the original hypothetical. There are no three year olds, no twitter even. That's my point, you are asking for evidence for a nonsense hypothetical because you see the scenario happening one way and can't grasp that those red pillers are conceptualising it in a completely different way. And so when you grill each other on the specifics it's like you aren't even talking about the same thing, and you end up asking them for things that don't even factor into their version of the hypothetical.
Don't get me wrong, this isn't meant as a dig - a lot of those red pillers are doing the same to you. It's a really fantastically put together scissor statement, pitting two moral frameworks against each other in a way that ensures the opposition looks evil. The only reason I think I didn't get caught in it is because I have such low regard for anything twitter that I couldn't fully embrace the hypothetical and remained a level removed at all times.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link