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 -
AIDS and Malaria cannot “just make a jump”. AIDS only is a thing in western world thanks to gays and drug addicts. Without them, we’d, uhm, flatten the curve by now (in fact, it would probably never become a thing in the first place, it only became a thing thanks to gay Canadian flight attendant who really liked to fuck random guys in places he flew into).
Malaria is not a disease that spreads from person to person, and we cannot have malaria become a thing in US, because we already stopped it being a thing. We used to have malaria in US, and we destroyed the conditions that allowed malaria to exist. We can’t have malaria now without recreating this condition, which, given the land use patterns, is highly unlikely.
Realistically speaking, people will continue to have promiscuous dangerous sex and to use intravenous drugs. The reason is simple: those things feel good. In order to make a major dent in the rates of either of those two things, you would need massive social change that, realistically speaking, could only come from some kind of massive shift in consciousness that, let's be real, is not going to happen - or it would require massive government intervention that would bring its own host of problems. For the latter, you'd basically need the entire US to become like Singapore, and let's face it, probably all but the most ardent social conservatives would hate that once they saw the downsides of having such a massively interventionist government.
Even if one somehow got rid of those things, the fact would remain that the deadliest diseases in human history were not caused by either promiscuous sex or drug use, so it would not even do much to address the overall issue of disease.
Uh, what skin off the back of upstanding citizens is it to just let them die?
It's bad karma.
You start dividing humanity into 'upstanding citizens worthy of life' and 'sub-humans whose life and well-being is not worth any efforts', sooner or later someone will put you into the second category.
Isn't this just triage? I don't think anyone has suggested rounding up people who have promiscuous dangerous sex or use intravenous drugs to send them to death camps. It's rather just letting nature take its course while devoting scarce lifesaving resources elsewhere, which I think is a pretty standard thing to do in medicine.
They may not be suggesting it now, but if you normalise regarding certain people's lives as a less sacred value than property....
A principle which, if carried to its ultimate conclusion, leads to 40-50% of babies dying before their fifth birthday.
Given those grim statistics, I hardly think that Nature is a good guide to right and wrong.
There is a difference between "We're at 200% capacity right now, and getting more resources will take longer than our patients have" versus "We will be over capacity some time in the future, we can get enough resources to save everyone by the time they will be needed, but we don't feel like doing so"; there is also a difference between "prioritising Alice over Bob because Alice has a 90% chance of survival while Bob has a 2% chance" versus "prioritising Alice over Bob because Bob is a member of a group we don't like".
I don't understand why you just put in this complete non-sequitur, especially given that it's also a blatant strawman. What "principle" is being pushed in the quoted part above? It wasn't saying that there was anything particularly desirable about letting nature take its course; the reasoning for taking nature take its course has nothing to do with the naturalistic fallacy, which you seem to be implying was part of my statement. The reason to let nature take its course here is, again, triaging; we have scarce resources that we have to distribute to a limited number of people, and letting nature take its course is the default that's left over.
This, too, is a complete strawman. The comments were pretty specific about the people in question, and describing them as "member of a group we don't like" is simply a lie. They were, to quote, "people [who] will continue to have promiscuous dangerous sex and to use intravenous drugs." The reasoning wasn't spelled out, but based on the previous comment, my inference was that it has to do with the fact that people who continue doing those things both tend to catch and spread diseases regardless of the medical care thrown at them, and so the resources of that care could be spent better elsewhere, ie triage. There's plenty of area for discussion on just what the percentages are and where the threshold should be, but characterizing that as anywhere in the same stratosphere as disliked groups isn't even the Worst Argument in the World, it's, again, just a lie.
I must admit, this reply of yours has me questioning if you're commenting in good faith, or if I'm just being trolled.
The notion that that someone's life matters less if nature wants them dead.
The argument "We don't have enough resources to save everyone" falls flat when made by someone who had the opportunity to get enough resources and chose not to.
The specific group isn't relevant to my argument, because when that lack of compassion is applied, it has a tendency to spread. That was the point Niemöller was trying to make.
Actually, there are anti-retrovirals which will make someone carrying HIV not spread it. However, even if that were not the case, saving a life is good.
Explain to me how my statement implied this. Is the contention here that triage by its very nature, of prioritizing the saving of lives that are more likely to be saved, pushes the principle that someone's life matters less if nature wants them dead? Are you against the very concept of triage?
This, again, just makes me think you're trolling, and I'm wasting my time.
It would. Is the example we're talking about one such case? There's plenty of discussion that could be had about that.
If that's the point, then it's either a vapid one or an awful one. Society has routinely applied lack of compassion to groups without having it spread. Today, we show a lack of compassion to convicted 1st degree murderers with respect to their desire to live outside of a prison (we show them greater than zero compassion, of course, but, also of course, literally zero compassion was never in discussion - again, rounding up those who have promiscuous dangerous sex or use intravenous drugs into death camps was never in discussion), and I disagree with the contention that this means that there's a danger that it would spread. Of course, with a loose enough definition of "spread," you can argue that it would and does, but with such a loose definition, that "spread" is utterly meaningless and not worth considering.
That's a fantastic point you could make for why we should give aid to the people in discussion. That point has literally nothing to do with the argument you made in the above comment relying on the slippery slope argument.
So, again, is your contention that triage just shouldn't be a thing? Literally everyone agrees that saving a life is good. We lack enough resources to save every life all the time, and the discussion here is about prioritization.
I'll also note here that not a single comment I made implies, in any way, that I would be for leaving these people to die. Personally, though I see where hydroacetylene is coming from, I find the notion of just letting these people die to be ethically... questionable at best, monstrous at worst, given the resources I believe we have at hand. But I find your objection to it to be even more detestable than hydroacetylene's comment.
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