site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   32684 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 9, 2024

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So if it's not your salary that's at fault, and it's not the medical cartel's restriction of the supply of doctors that is at fault, and it's not the insurance companies because they're legally required to pay out such a large portion of their revenue, whose fault is it? All I see in this thread is a bunch of deflecting and blame shifting but without one concrete indication from you as to what the actual problem is that needs to be solved. When you've attempted to shift the blame to other elements of the healthcare system, other commenters have replied with evidence to the contrary that seems to surprise you. So who is at fault?

Bureaucratic institutions, if given access to funding are going to proliferate indefinitely.

Parkinson's laws are undefeated. Famously predicted RN with more admirals than ships.

Came true in '90s. These days, there's more army general in the British Army than there are tanks in it. Probably more generals than big artillery pieces too.

I mean its cost disease. Ex: excess regulatory burden that does nothing helpful.

Same as in everywhere else in the economy with the cost overruns.

You're only tossing that out now that other commentors poked holes in your other attempted explanations. You may as well blame the tooth fairy. If you genuinely thought that you would have opened with it, and you'd have some concrete ideas about what regulations are in the way. Your profession by and large does not give a fuck about the human aspect of medicine or the cost to individuals, and this wildly out of touch crypost from you is full of evidence of it. Luigi's only mistake is he didn't get the surgeon who ruined his back too.

Please refrain from attacking others as insincere. The generalized rage isn’t particularly constructive, either.

Your profession by and large does not give a fuck about the human aspect of medicine or the cost to individuals, and this wildly out of touch crypost from you is full of evidence of it. Luigi's only mistake is he didn't get the surgeon who ruined his back too.

Think about what you just said here.

"I wish the assassin had killed a doctor too" "doctors don't care about people."

Does that really seem reasonable, or fair? Doctors should be murdered for routine complications or things that just don't work?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats