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 -
Lockdowns made... some kind of sense in 2019/early 2020 when we had few other tools and the pandemic could have still turned out to be deadlier based on the reports coming out of China. In the past four-odd years conditions have changed. And anyway, Zero Covid has been a much more unhinged regime than the US lockdown ever was.
lockdowns never made sense at any point w/re to covid; there was zero scientific evidence to support them, lots of historical evidence against them, and the costs were enormous
it's why lockdowns were not apart of any pandemic planning
at best, the people pushing lockdowns were midwit morons who bought into suspicious Chinese claims about covid numbers and control even though they admit those numbers were not independently verified and the Chinese have a history of lying about these precise topics
Can you actually cite the evidence against, please?
weird you didn't ask the other person making the opposite claims for evidence, huh
There's a difference between "I think lockdowns sort of made sense" and "science says that lockdowns don't make sense." (It's that one of those gets called out on not citing sources.)
If you say "there is evidence", you're gonna have to expect people saying "well show it then."
you chose to paraphrase similar statements as different in order to justify your one-sided demand for "evidence"
when you do that, it appears to me to be the attrition game in online comments and not genuine search for evidence (not that it necessarily isn't)
I'm working on a top level comment or post w/re to this topic; when/if I post it, I'll tag you.
The two statements are:
And
The second of those marshals "evidence" to support itself; the first does not. Claiming evidence and not providing any is worse than not claiming any to begin with.
Looking forward to your post!
your claim is
requires zero evidence to support? there are various assumptions around lockdowns, their effects, and various other things around COVID19 known at the time at all to buttress this statement
is this because it's just intuitive to you? in any case, it's not a supportable argument
this is basic one-sided demand for rigor and justifies my treatment of your comment
I'm not saying it requires zero evidence, I'm saying if you cite that you have evidence, you have a particular obligation to provide it.
Everyone should always have evidence, but saying something without evidence is just having an unjustified opinion. Saying you have evidence and then not providing it is actively misleading.
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