site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   25227 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 30, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There are a lot of economic data conspiracy theories out there but they can never point us to what data we're actually supposed to be looking at. What do you want us to consider aside from vibes and anecdotes?

What do you want me to trust, gamed statistics? I put no faith in the officials who are knowingly conning me. Why do you?

I think it's a tremendous self-own if you have to reduce your personal experience in the world to "vibes and anecdotes". Do you need to read about your life in the papers before you know if it's good or not? The cost of everything has gone up tremendously in a few years, that doesn't stop being true just because two years have passed and high prices are the new normal so that the year-over-year statistic is "good".

and inflation, however you measure it, is coming down

Well yes that's just it -- inflation is still going up, it's just not going up as fast as it was before. We broke things, and then we fixed it halfway -- this is the glass-half-full economics success.

what do you want me to trust, gamed statistics?

I wouldn’t mind finding some not-gamed ones.

Clearly, there are at least two camps of people in this thread. @Tomato’s situation looks pretty different from yours, which looks pretty different from mine. How else are we supposed to figure out which is more generally applicable, if not looking for stats?

My economic life and the lives of everyone around me is incredibly good, so it’s useful for me to look at statistics to see how far-off people in different areas with different professions and backgrounds are doing. And when I look at the data it turns out they’re doing great too!

I don't know anybody who voted for Nixon!

You understand this is literally the argument you yourself are making when you suggest we operate off anecdotes and not statistics.

The statistics are all made-up, they are gamed for political purposes, believing them is worse than ignorance. Why would you put your trust in numbers that are lying to you?

they are gamed for political purposes

In what manner? Please read this and tell me which specific elements of their methodology you question. Be specific.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/cpihom.pdf

Now this is just tedious.

"These metrics are all unverifiable and can be trivially manipulated."

"Oh yeah? What about this one?"

Yes, CPI is a gamed bullshit statistic. What do you want me to say? Note that it so obviously lacks objective criteria that BLS has to publish several versions to keep up with all their competing ideas about how to measure it.

Now, you could make an argument that what CPI is trying to measure is worthwhile. But that loses all meaning in the human context -- note that CPI is measured over a period of time, and prices mainly rose highest long enough ago that many of these measures are no longer counting it -- I shot you last week, are you still hung up on that?

This is indeed tedious; specifically, it's tedious for so many people in this thread to sling shit about economic statistics without ever actually clarifying what their problem is. If you tell me a key statistics is being manipulated, it's hardly unreasonable for me to ask how.

What do you want me to say?

I want you to tell me HOW it is gamed.

Note that it so obviously lacks objective criteria that BLS has to publish several versions to keep up with all their competing ideas about how to measure it.

Yes, economic metrics, especially something like inflation, are indeed difficult to measure with total accuracy. What is the easy and simple way of measuring inflation that you seem to think exists? I'd rather hear from the analysts in the arena who actually try to do a good job than someone who makes unsubstantiated criticisms of statistics despite having nothing to contribute on the subject himself.

"Statistics show things are not bad" -> "believe the anecdotes around you!"

"People are doing well around me" -> "no, not those anecdotes!"

Chadyes.jpg

I believe in the things happening to me way more than the things happening to you

Likewise!

I genuinely don’t know what you’re looking for. People say they’re doing good. Dems think other people are doing good. Republicans, who also think they’re doing good, think other people are doing bad. I’m not sure who these other people republicans are worried about are but I hope things get better for them (in the minds of republicans!)

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