site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   26211 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 1, 2024

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You think a lot of people get run over by buses? Or for that matter you think a lot of healthy young people get cancer or even break a leg?

  1. I think that having accident severe enough that hospitalization / doctor help is highly useful are relatively common to the point that I would care about it

  2. yes, I think that broken leg is not something unusual - and if I would break leg it would not be some black swan event

It seem even even more frequent than I expected from looking at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=5732068_nihms896931f1.jpg

See also

Over the 3-year study period, 2009–11, 2,482 Olmsted County residents age 18–49 years experienced one or more fractures, for an overall age- and sex-adjusted incidence of any fracture of 1,291 per 100,000 p-y (95% CI, 1,240–1,342). There were 1,447 men and 1,035 women, and 91% were white by self-report, in keeping with the racial composition of the community in this age-group (84% white in 2010). The age-adjusted annual incidence for women was 1,007 per 100,000 (95% CI, 945–1,069) compared to 1,567 per 100,000 (95% CI, 1,486–1,648) for men

from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5732068/

(note: not verified this study at all)

"You think a lot of people get run over by buses?" in USA alone about 40 000 - 50 000 people die in traffic accidents each year. (not checked injuries statistics as it is more likely to be creatively inflated and would require more effort to process it)

That’s like what 0.01%ish of the population? And of those, how many people die on the spot? It can’t explain the presence of “healthcare is super important”

As for broken bones, 1%ish every three years isn’t that much either. Also probably isn’t that bad of an experience from a medical perspective either.

For start, it is 1% annual incidence, right? Which is 46% over 60 years assuming flat 1% chance per year.

And even 0.3% annual is 16% chance over 60 years.

(and if you are unsure why people care about reverse lottery where they have say 0.1% chance of losing 50 000$ each year - then I am just confused)

(number very roughly estimated, I guess that you could pull real numbers but I expect them in this kind of area - how much USA people in the top 0.1% of medical payments in given year pay typically? how much in say Germany or Poland?)

That’s like what 0.01%ish of the population? And of those, how many people die on the spot? It can’t explain the presence of “healthcare is super important”

many more are seriously injured. That is 40-50k dead outright.

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