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 -
We know that the academic-government-NGO complex is cooking the scientific books in service of whatever the short-term political goal is for their class. COVID proved this beyond a shadow of any doubt, and in short enough timespans for a lot of people to notice. This may not matter much for most of the hard science that is not politically salient, but it matters a lot for "science" that is directly impacting public policy. Economics as a profession has always had this weakness.
You seem pretty big mad that a few of us are not gonna roll over for Euler anymore. Institutional trust is a thing, and it is a thing that has been entirely destroyed. If your "experts" and their fan club want to be taken seriously, they need to clean house. People who abuse positions of trust and authority to promote false science to the public need to be publicly punished, those who enabled and repeated the lies need to be publicly punished, and the entire superstructure needs to be completely re-oriented to avoid such obvious bullshit in the future.
If you start now, you might get back to the position of trust in fifty years or so. Until then, your data is meaningless, your appeals to authority hollow. It could be correct in any specific instance, to be clear. But it can't be trusted, because it's being produced by partisan hacks who will lie their heads off for any or no reason at all. None of us have the time to investigate every paper to see if it's hogwash or not.
So you can stop appealing to that particular naked monarch. If you want to be able to appeal to "science", you best start with making the science trustworthy.
I'll wait.
More options
Context Copy link