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 -
Homosexuality and gender transition are definitely illegal in Algeria. It's not an Iran situation where Persians are weirdly fine with transition as a solution to Homosexuality.
It's not technically impossible that it's a birth certificate identity fraud or Balls-at-twelve situation, but I'm pretty comfortable putting the onus on those looking to disqualify. The assumption should be that someone who was born as female is female.
None of which changes the outcome of the Carini fight.
Irrelevant. Figuring out whether this is a dude or not is a simple question, and should not require going into the legal status of homosexuality or gender transitions in Algeria.
I disagree, any argument that relies on trust in mainstream institutions in politically fraught cases is inherently flawed.
In any case I did not ask about assumptions and what they should be, I asked for evidence. It's downright absurd how both sides are Leroy-Jenkinsing into this, on the basis of absolutely nothing.
What evidence am I supposed to have if we're not trusting institutions? Am I supposed to go grope her? The evidence I offered was the analysis of the fights she was in, if you want to dispute that evidence it is on you to offer evidence that she is intersex.
Just so we're clear, I'm talking about "benefit of the doubt" arguments, like yours above. There should be no assumption of "someone would have noticed by now" or "let's go with the passport / birth ceritificate". This is a very easily testable thing, and she should be made to take such a test (a chromosomal one, for example).
You were putting the onus on the disqualifiers a second ago, are they supposed to grope her?
The results of the fight do not prove anything one way or the other, so I have no idea why you even bring it up.
My claim isn't that this person is either male, female, intersex, or something else entirely, my claim is "we don't know", and my evidence for the fact that we don't know, is that no one can seem to come up with any specific evidence in either direction.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If she has overwhelming physical advantages, such that they are unfair to allow in competition, then it would show up in her fight with Broadhurst. It doesn't, Broadhurst bullies her around the ring. I've never heard of a hormone that doesn't work against the Irish. That's the most objective evidence we can have about unfairness in boxing: the boxing!
I guess I see your point that we could all refrain from any discussion on the topic absent personal knowledge, but the standard of proof has to place the onus somewhere, and there's significant moral hazard in a "believe all women accusers" standard. It seems morally obvious to me that the requirement should be on the party crying unfairness to offer evidence of unfairness. Given that the record in the ring is mixed at best and offers no clear support for disqualifying Khelif, additional evidence must be offered on that side.
Lance didn't win every race, doesn't mean he didn't dope. Card counting doesn't allow you to win every hand, but it still gives you an advantage. All that that Broadhurst's win reveals is the advantage of her opponent isn't insurmountable, not that it doesn't exist or that it isn't unfair.
Basically everybody Lance competed against at the highest level was also doping.
It radically changes the debate to say the advantage is routinely surmounted. It also undermines Carini's testimony that "she's just too strong."
Indeed, until his doping was discovered Lance had a reputation as "the only one not doping".
I still remember how heartbroken my neighbor felt. He is a bicycle enthusiast who survived cancer, Lance was his idol!
I laugh every time someone claims X wouldn't do steroids he's too good a guy. Everyone would, love. If they wouldn't, they wouldn't be here.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link