site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30069 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 13, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I probably wouldn't have written it for narcolepsy, but that's my point, isn't it? There's no reason why sleep apnea should be considered grounds for license revocation, because it's super common, almost everyone has it sometimes, even if they're not diagnosed, and there's no reason to think that it poses a particular risk to driving. Where is the data that shows this policy is necessary, that untreated sleep apnea is a risk to driving and treated sleep apnea is not? Where are the droves of citizens dying because they were hit by drivers who have sleep apnea? If the state decided to take it upon themselves to declare this is necessary, what else will they declare it for?

There's no reason why sleep apnea should be considered grounds for license revocation

And my point is that you don't know that. A quick search online turns up many studies that show a substantial increase in the risk of car accidents from those suffering from sleep apnea. Moreover, this study notes that "Characteristics that may predict crash in drivers with OSA include BMI, apnea plus hypopnea index, oxygen saturation, and possibly daytime sleepiness."

So, there does seem to be some evidence that people with sleep apnea are more dangerous drivers, especially if they have additional risk factors . And it sounds as if the state probably looks for additional factors before imposing conditions.

Whether that danger is high enough to merit driving restrictions of the kinds that the state has imposed on your friend is a different issue, of course.

This study shows that people who have never been married are at higher risk for car accidents: https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/10/1/33

This study shows that people who are more angry are at higher risk for accidents: https://www.apa.org/monitor/jun05/anger

I don't think most people would be in favor of the government telling you you have to be married to drive. I don't think most people would be okay with the government putting microphones in your home to hear if you shout too much, and revoking your license if you do.

I'm not disputing that. As I said, "Whether that danger is high enough to merit driving restrictions of the kinds that the state has imposed on your friend is a different issue, of course."

So I'm not really clear what you are saying then. From the top of the thread you started off by saying that you thought my initial post was BS and wasn't actually happening in real life and now you're no longer saying that... you're saying that you know that scientific studies can be abused in order to justify policies like this that most people will find to be unreasonable, unwanted, and without value... but you're okay with it happening anyway? I think I missed something, I'm confused. I'm not certain I see the common thread throughout what you were trying to say, except that you're playing devil's advocate for everything.

and now you're no longer saying that

No, I am saying the exact same thing that I have said all along: That your claim, that every person who has sleep apnea is given the mandates you list, seems to be incorrect. We only know that they are imposed on some people.

The issue that I have not addressed is whether the mandates are sound policy.

I see, I think I misinterpreted some of what you previously said. So when you said:

And it sounds as if the state probably looks for additional factors before imposing conditions.

You're somehow making the assumption that the state must be trying to figure out on an individual-by-individual level whether their sleep apnea poses a risk, and sanctioning them appropriately? Where are you drawing that conclusion from? I've seen no such indication of that, whatsoever.

I already discussed that.

Did you? You never brought up any evidence that indicates that the state examines severity of individual cases, and the likelihood of whether or not particular cases are likely to cause accidents into account.

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