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 -
A fun framework I often go to for thinking about policy issues is what I guess I'll call "identifying a Buridan point". The gist is:
Given a binary decision (options A or B) I must make based on a continuous input where:
there must exist some point C (Y>C>X), where I am perfectly equivocal between options A and B. This point C is the "Buridan point" and gives me a quantification of my stance on a particular issue.
Here is a simple example: Suppose Joe must decide if he supports euthanizing all dogs based on the rate of children killed by dogs:
Therefore, there must exist some "acceptable" rate of children killed by dogs X at which Joe finds the benefits of dog ownership to exactly offset the lives of killed children.
In an ideal world, people would keep control of their dogs but there will be mistakes and there will be bad actors. The only way to absolutely guarantee that no child is killed by a dog is by eliminating all dogs. The decision to not euthanize all dogs is accepting that the children killed by dogs every year are an acceptable sacrifice for the option of dog ownership.
What is X(dogs) for you?
Control+F replace all, dog -> gun
Control+F replace all, euthaniz -> confiscat
What is X(guns) for you?
Obviously actual policy decisions have a continuous or at least graded set of options, rather than an extreme binary, but I find such questions revealing nevertheless. Despite the absurdity, it makes me ask myself: "How much better/worse do things have to get for me to reverse my position?"
Anyways, any thoughts on whether this has any value for quantifying preferences?
I don't fall for these kinds of traps usually because I also understand there are potentially second order effects to consider, and thus its not a pure linear tradeoff, even if we design the policy on that basis.
Maybe the population of dogs, despite killing kids, was also curbing some additional threat where, if the dogs were removed, would mostly replace the dogs as the primary threat to child livelihood.
In fact we have a very topical analogy for this, in the real world! WOLF REINTRODUCTION!
Ranchers killed off wolves because they were a threat to cattle herds, but this also allows the local deer, elk, etc. population to explode, which means overforaging of vegetation and other potential environmental harms, which is ALSO bad for the cattle on top of all else!
So they've brought back wolves in certain areas and the argument is that now the herbivore population is back into a 'natural' balance checked by the predators which is better for the local flora, which is better for the ecosystem as a whole.
Similarly, imagine we get rid of guns and criminal psychopaths with knives are suddenly springing up everywhere, stabbing children, unchecked by their natural predators.
So the Buridan point for being in favor of mass dog euthanasia is going to be relatively high, for me, and I would certainly explore other policy options before committing to it.
Higher order effects can and should be taken into account when selecting a Buridan point. For example, I would imagine the Buridan point for car ownership vs motor vehicle deaths would be rather high given the immense benefits/conveniences of car ownerships to people and society at large. I partially chose the dog example because:
most people like dogs so they'd probably be willing to tolerate several deaths per year (we already do)
dogs provide no net benefit to anyone but the pleasure of the owners (they are completely removed from the food chain and they otherwise are a net detriment given their massive carbon footprint, the daily urine/stool output providing loci for disease spread, and other externalities like barking noise, smell, etc.)
Seeing eye dogs and handicapped assistance dogs, bomb and/or drug sniffing dogs, rescue dogs, I mean let's at least be clear about what is being given up.
To say nothing of cattle dogs and sled dogs and other working dogs.
I'm not just against Dog Euthanasia because I like dogs, we have millennia of shared history with the species and we've bred them to fill dozens of niches that have aided human society for centuries. Giving up that benefit with no takesies backsies is not something to do flippantly.
I guess it's about 0.1% of them. I live where there is snow and yet I barely remember anyone using Huskies or Malamuts for their original use, it's so rare. These uses are nearly obsolete. WTF who needs a 80 kg cattle dog in a 10M city but here they are.
Better hope that nothing happens that renders them more useful again, is all I'll say.
(which is similar to what I say about many types of guns)
Okay, now I want a zombie movie where uninfected dogs help human zombies find living humans, and while the zombie eats the brains, the dog eats the rest.
You're greenlit for a 10 episode Netflix series.
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