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 -
I think the most disturbing type of argument around Ukraine is the one that pretends to be doing it "for their own good". Like "Why don't you want peace, why don't you want peace? Why do you want your people to die?" to the victims of a dictator invading their home, bombing their cities, kidnapping their children and stealing their land. If they aren't settling for your offer it's probably because they don't think your offer is good enough to actually protect them. They're in desperation, if an offer was convincing they would take it. So why not?
They've been promised security before, they gave up their nukes for it. They sign a deal that Russia won't punch them in the face, Russia violates it twice and if they don't want to just sign another without a stronger third party guarantee, it's not because they don't want peace. It's because they know Russia can't be trusted.
They don't think American investments means much, before the war there was that joke rule of "no two countries with a McDonald's have ever been at war" which was essentially emblematic of this concept. That international business interests for peace were simply too strong for a country to overcome, and yet the war happened anyway.
If someone doesn't want to support Ukraine fine, there's lots of other bad stuff we ignore and don't help out with. But those people spreading this idea that "they must want to be invaded and die so not helping them is actually the best help", I just find that really sickening.
So Ukraine doesn't settle for this offer and holds out... and it gets worse for them. Ukraine gets bombed more. Their graveyards expand. More territory gets annexed by Russia.
This is just epic-scale sunk cost fallacy among Western leadership and especially Ukraine. If there is one thing the foreign policy elite class really struggles with, it's accepting defeat. But the costs of propping up Ukraine aren't worth the gains. Slowly but surely the message is sinking in and the wiliest rats are leaving the sinking ship.
Who is going to provide them security guarantees that are innately non-credible? Why would the Russians expect the US, Britain or France to risk ruination over Ukraine? Why risk making a bluff that will be called? Ukraine's not a treaty ally and they can't become a treaty ally, the war is about that amongst other things. The gap in determination between Russia and the Western nuclear powers is too great. It's like the reverse of Serbia, Russia didn't guarantee them, they helped Serbia but didn't make bluffs that would be called.
So there aren't going to be security guarantees that bring on a risk of humiliation or extreme danger for the guaranteeing power. That's not going to happen. No matter how impressive Ukraine's stalling tactics are (and they have fought impressively) the logic of size and numbers is against them and the prognosis is very grim.
Stringing along the understandably desperate and somewhat stupid leaders in Ukraine with insincere promises of guarantees at some unspecified future is ignoble behaviour.
It doesn't get worse.
Before invasion in February 2022 certain western leaders offered Zelensky a ride. Basically they told him not to resist to save human lives. The reality was that Ukrainians would have resisted anyway but most probably would have lost. It would have led to terrible retributions from Russia. Think about Bucha multiplied hundreds of times.
Obviously, we cannot with 100% confidence say what would have happened but the idea is that Zelensky saved a lot of lives. Now pacifists are angry with him that he didn't save all lives. A lot of Ukrainians still perished and still dying on the battlefield.
It is a very hard concept for many to accept.
P.S. Unrelated to the war, but the same unwillingness to accept that some deaths will happen anyway let to higher mortality during covid pandemic. Still majority haven't accepted that despite clear data that Sweden fared best of all. They had about the same mortality from covid that the UK or any other western country and yet their excess mortality was practically zero whereas it was very high in the US. Why? The secret was to tolerate some deaths from covid as inevitable. There was no need to call Tegnel a nazi like some politicians did it hastily.
The whole Bucha story still stinks to high heaven. I don't think nothing happened, but it seems like the number of killings of civilians that are actually backed by solid evidence can be counted in the tens, and is more in the class of wanton violence by undisciplined military units that both parties in this conflict have been engaging in whenever they were in an area with a hostile civilian population than anything resembling the systematic massacre the pro-UA press wants it to be. The initial messaging about it was chaotic, too - I still remember the strangely arranged shots of "streets full of corpses" that were circulated in the earliest days of the narrative, with the bodies wearing something resembling military fatigues with white armbands (before the Western press had realised that white armbands were and continue being used as friend identification by Russian units - Ukrainians use blue).
There is really no reason to assume that a few civilians killed by trashy soldiers shooting at everything that moves, in a chaotic situation where an expected victory was turning into a rout, would have translated into many more in a setting where the victory proceeded as expected. Of course it's plausible that there would have been a French-style resistance, which attracted many more participants who would die in their subsequent armed struggle - but resistance fighters are not hapless civilians.
Sorry, I don't engage in obvious falsehoods.
I have so many Kremlin apologists doubting that MH17 happened. I don't have time and energy to respond to all this. It is not very productive use of my time.
Doubting Bucha when we have so much confirmed evidence is pointless. It is what before we used to call FUD at the start of internet. I am that old.
As a sidebar, I started in the internet around 1999, in the forum era. So I missed usenet and bbs. FUD is from that era? What corner of the internet was this? Asking sincerely, was it the anti-war crowd?
As I’m sure you know, FUD has now been taken up by pro-establishment types online. I’m curious about the lineage of the groups that use this term.
I don't know the history well. FUD just means Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. When internet was started (dialling in), everybody thought it will be a revolution but then spammers and FUD started. It can be about anything. It became clear that with open communications it is not easier to get true information as people are not inherently searching for truth but just want to express their opinions.
The great example is ivermectin effectiveness. Why this should be controversial? The story is very simple – we tried many things at the start of pandemic including ivermectin. There were some signals that it could be useful. But more studies were done and the signal disappeared. It happens with a lot of potential medicines. In about 10 prospective treatments only 1 passes final studies and are approved. Everybody can read data and this story. Starting from wikipedia and then Scott Alexander article for deeper interested laypersons. Specialists will simply read original sources. We have no controversy. Even Scott's assertion that it was ivermectin's anti-parasites effect that worked is a stretch and might not be true but I will assume that it is real.
Any information that somehow ivermectin effect is not resolved is FUD. I don't know why people continue bringing it up. Maybe they are really confused, maybe they have poor skills distinguishing real data from garbage, maybe they are propagandists or grifters. I don't care even if they are true believers. It is such a non-issue, not as close to that the earth is round but not that far either.
Obviously, sometimes we have to discuss things that the earth is round or that ivermectin is not effective. Usually with children or some learners. But it is boring to have such discussion in serious forums.
I'm sorry, is it your contention that it is the people who thought ivermectin could help who employed FUD? Not the establishment forces who proclaimed it horse medicine and dangerous?
I have spent some time studying things outside my professional field, for example, about economics. I am not an expert, far from it, but I am quite confident about some basic principles in economy. I read Noah Smith, Marginal Revolution and some others. Anyone interested can gain a similar level of understanding without studying economics at school, just purely for interest, not too deep and because it is quite important in our society. I started with many false beliefs, but took time to read a lot of things online, and now I can see consensus about these basic principles and how things work. Obviously there are many opinions about certain policies etc., but they do not differ in a fundamental way.
But then there are others who haven't given any thought about things at all but who listen to some populists and immediately form an opinion that they proclaim loudly as irrefutable truth. For example, I have taken interest in Milei, the president in Argentina. His reforms generally are viewed as good and necessary. There is no resistance from mainstream economists. Even World Bank has recommended many things that Milei has undertaken. Milei words usually are stronger than his work but even that can be understood due to Argentina's long stagnation and lack of growth.
But then other people demand that we need Milei in our country (Latvia) because our economy is in tatters. It is not objectively true. There is objectively vast difference between GDP between Argentina and Latvia. For some reason Latvia has experienced significant growth, its GDP has grown about 10 times in the last 30 years. It started below Argentina and overtook it and succeeded while Argentina's GDP during this time has mostly stayed flat. Obviously, the situation is completely different that one needs to provide special arguments why it is similar to Argentina because by all measures it is not.
Maybe some smart people have some insights about corruption, growth retarders etc. But most will simply repeat some slogans they have heard from Milei and others, mix them with some vitriol against “establishment”, Word Forum, Bill Gates or whatever is popular each season. When probed, they will admit that they don't know much, it is probably the first time someone has told them what is Argentina's GDP, how GDP is calculated but definitely know that it is a false measure and should not be used because it only hides the truth which is that everything is bad and the elite should be exposed for their crimes etc.
I am tired discussing with people who only want to proclaim their opinions and don't want to learn.
More options
Context Copy link
It is a test if a person is serious and takes at least some time to check if their opinion about something, for example, his beliefs about ivermectin are valid. If I had never known anything about ivermectin, just read something on internet that it is good for covid or that is a poison that kills you, I wouldn't trust it too much, maybe with 5% confidence. If I was asked to provide an opinion, I would do some research, starting from wikipedia, Scott Alexander's article etc. If one cannot bother to do that, why should I listen to his or her opinion about ivermectin and other things?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's far older than that, originates in the 1920s and was a term of art in marketing in the 50s and 60s long before the Internet.
But it did get popular in computer circles when Amdahl left IBM and used it to describe the anti-competitive practices of his former employer. Then the torch of being computer Satan passed to Microsoft and it was applied to them until it became the general purpose term we see today, in a somewhat fitting return to its marketing roots.
ESR tells the story in the Jargon File.
Thanks, it is really interesting to know.
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