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 -
Well, yes, certainly. But I'm in favour of legalising, uh, let's see... essentially all hallucinogens, essentially all stimulants except methamphetamine, cannabis, benzos, and barbiturates, and as stated I'm on the fence regarding opiates. I might not be literally saying "legalise all drugs", but I'm willing to go like 90% of the way there, so I figured I counted as the sort of person being addressed.
(AFAIK, the vast majority of people saying "legalise all drugs" are omitting the carfentanyl issue out of some combination of ignorance and brevity - not very many people look up chemical weapons for fun, and outside the Ratsphere putting asterisks on everything gets you frowned at - rather than legitimately taking the position that one should be able to go down the street and place an order for a kilo of carfentanyl. There'd be more legitimately wanting to legalise meth, though.)
Carfentanyl is a poor choice as recreational drug; even industrial production can't regulate the dose well enough for reliable human use. It's not a particularly great chemical weapon; there's lots of things that can kill people through contact, and it's certainly one of them, but if it was sold as a recreational drug the quantities involved would made it no more dangerous that other opiates except at the manufacturing plant.
It does have some interesting qualities, like the fact that there's a fully-effective antidote allowing use as a relatively-safe knockout dust (yes, a lot of people died in the Moscow theatre, but that's because they didn't actually tell the hospitals to bring enough of the antidote). But yes, as far as terrorists are concerned it's just an unexceptional-by-post-WWI-chemical-weapon-standards aerosolisable poison - the thing is that we don't let random people buy kilograms of any of the rest of those either, whereas you totally can walk down the street and buy most chemicals (well, not so many these days, because there are so many things that can be used to make ephedrine/pseudoephedrine into methamphetamine and the current solution appears to be "ban literally all of them", but you can still buy sulphuric acid and such).
There's a fair number of organophosphate pesticides which are quite toxic and can be bought reasonably easily. But as I also said, carfentanyl as a recreational drug wouldn't have that problem; a government could allow sale of human-use pills and solutions quite freely without having to worry about it being used for mass murder, provided the bulk chemical was restricted (as a dangerous industrial chemical, not by the DEA).
Yes, but their LD50s are quite a bit higher than sarin's or carfentanyl's.
Which is exactly what I'm saying.
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