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 -
Sure, but it's a relatively simple computer program. And you can write those to run perfectly the first time if you are very careful, and if the stakes are high enough to incentivize you to double check your work before submitting.
Importantly, the ability to do this is a skill which can be learned, and is important to actually use when making predictions. When I see
a red flag goes up in my mind. Because "all" is an extremely ambitious condition, and 90% seems way too high for that. And part of the point of being rational (or rational-adjacent) is to recognize and avoid the exaggeration and hyperbole that everyone else uses in common speech. You might casually say "all of mandates will be gone by September" and, when someone calls you out and questions that as being unrealistic, and asks for a concrete prediction, you should think about it more deeply and walk back the exaggeration. "Well, not literally all, they'll probably keep some for healthcare workers, and maybe one or two nations will keep most of them, but I predict at least 8 out of these 10 specific nations will lift mandates for 90% of the population" or something like that. The fact that this person didn't walk back their bold and unrealistic claim when making a bet is an actual mistake that deserves a loss, not a technicality. The term "all" didn't set off a red flag in their mind, and it should have.
It's a technicality. The proposition it's trying to prove is not "literally all", it's "substantially all". That proposition was proven true by reality,.
The fact that he literally said X doesn't mean that the intent of the bet was to prove X.
"All" means "all". "Substantially all" just invites arguing over "substantially" after the fact. Perhaps you can quibble about rules from subnational entities (since the bet was about "Western countries"), but there are still national mask mandates and national vaccine mandates in place.
My whole point is that, no, it doesn't, except literally, and literally is not the intent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link