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 -
So, what's the deal with Fluoride in the water anyway?
According to this tweet by Marc Andreesen, a U.S. government review has concluded that Fluoride in the drinking water lowers IQ's in kids. The literature reviewed suggests that high levels of exposure reduce IQ's by 2 to 5 points.
If so, this would absolutely dominate any conceivable benefit from putting the stuff in the drinking water.
And it also seems largely unnecessary given that fluoridated toothpastes and mouthwash exist. Drinking the stuff is an incredibly poor intervention compared to, you know, actually applying it directly to our teeth.
Assuming Anddreesen's tweet is true (which I assume by default given his status as a top venture fund leader), this is absolutely scandalous.
Water fluoridation is one of those things that always astounds me and reminds me how completely different the past was, politically and in terms of social cohesion and trust in science, experts and all that. The idea that a few scientists could run a few relatively short-term experiments (just a few years) and see a relatively minor benefit (tooth cavities hardly seems like an existential crisis) and based on this get the government to introduce a chemical to the water supply nationwide without facing widespread riots or resistance is just insane to me. I'm not trying to claim that fluoride is harmful or anything like that, just that the public seems to have had such complete trust in politicians, scientists, public health officials, bureaucrats and the media to accept it is an amazing demonstration of how different things are. It is an oft raised lament that "we don't build anything anymore" or that we aren't capable of the large-scale works of the past and I think this is directly related to that. I think there needs to be a certain level of blind trust in authorities to enable that which is a bit of a two edged sword.
It is becoming very hard for me personally to reconcile my lament that "we don't build anything anymore" with my own anti-conformist and stubborn opposition to things like covid lockdowns and covid vaccination as I think they are in direct opposition to some extent. As I've gotten older I have come to believe that public consensus and trust in institutions is more important than the actual content of that consensus or the 'correctness' of those experts and institutions, but at the same time I remain skeptical and stubborn. Does anyone else relate to this conflicted feeling?
No. Reality matters. A consensus contrary to reality is a disaster in the making, and trust in untrustworthy institutions is foolish and counterproductive.
I have a big issue with your statement. It sounds correct but in my mind doesn't stand up to scrutiny. What is reality? Who decides that exactly? How can you decide whether an institution , whether that is the police or whoever , did their job correctly? Are you capable or even interested in judging each and every move they make ? And what do you do with that judgement? Do you just use your judgement ( whether right or wrong) to fuel hatred and distrust? Because you are probably not using it to make a a practical change. So what is it? What is the goal? The cornerstone of society is trust. Trust has to be blind up to a logical point.
Yes, but I'm not concerned about whether it stands up to scrutiny in your mind; I am only concerned about whether it stands up to scrutiny in reality.
Let us say the institutions claim there is definitely no train coming down a set of railroad tracks. Reality is what decides whether someone standing on the tracks when that train arrives gets crushed or not.
A month later but yeah. I am surprised you have 16 likes considering you basically say nothing of substance and don't reply to my point but I guess the reddit virus is strong here as well. The fact that you think reality is such a clear thing leads me to believe this isn't a fruitful discussion and I am wasting my time but in any case.
We are not talking about a train coming down the tracks are we now? We are talking about complex issues that are not as clear. Unless you are ready to consider a big chunk of world population that doesn't have the same opinion as straight up crazy then you must admit there is a big amount of complexity right there. Does that realization elude you or what?
You just got warned to stop doing this, and you immediately go dig up a month old post to revisit an argument?
You're clearly not new here and everything you post so far is a sneer. You can argue and disagree with people without slighting their intelligence or waving your IAmVerySmart flag. Stop doing this or you will be banned.
How was any of this a sneer? He literally says nothing of substance in response to my point , why is it an issue when i highlight it? I wasn't overtly offensive or anything like that. In fact I will argue that he began with the sneer remarks with this comment 'Yes, but I'm not concerned about whether it stands up to scrutiny in your mind; I am only concerned about whether it stands up to scrutiny in reality.' .Which was unnecessary and missing the point.
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