site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   13179 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 19, 2025

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Scott briefly observes, "The only thing about COVID nobody talks about anymore is the 1.2 million deaths.

That’s 1.2 million American deaths. Globally it’s officially 7 million, unofficially 20 - 30 million. But 1.2 million American deaths is still a lot. It’s more than Vietnam plus 9/11 plus every mass shooting combined - in fact, more than ten times all those things combined. It was the single highest-fatality event in American history, beating the previous record-holder - the US Civil War - by over 50%. All these lives seem to have fallen into oblivion too quietly to be heard over the noise of Lab Leak Debate #35960381.

Maybe it’s because they were mostly old people? Old people have already lived a long life, nobody can get too surprised about them dying. But although only a small fraction of COVID deaths were young people, a small fraction of a large number can still be large: the pandemic killed 250,000 <65-year-old Americans, wiping out enough non-seniors to populate Salt Lake City. More military-age young men died in COVID than in Iraq/Afghanistan. Even the old people were somebody’s spouse or parent or grandparent; many should have had a good 5 - 10 years left.

Usually I’m the one arguing that we have to do cost-benefit analysis, that it’s impractical and incoherent to value every life at infinity billion dollars. And indeed, most lockdown-type measures look marginal on a purely economic analysis, and utterly fail one that includes hedonic costs. Rejecting some safety measures even though they saved lives was probably the right call. Still, I didn’t want to win this hard. People are saying things like “COVID taught us that scientists will always exaggerate how bad things will be.” I think if we’d known at the beginning of COVID that it would kill 1.2 million Americans, people would have thought that whatever warnings they were getting, or panicky responses were being proposed, were - if anything - understated.1

A better comparison for 1.2 million Americans dying would be the Spanish Flu: An estimated 675,000 Americans died, while the total population was estimated to be round 106,000,000. (The 2020 estimated population was around 331,500,000.)

One problem I have with the online debates about covid policy is there's no clear counterfactual: 2021 deaths were higher than 2020 deaths, which is bad for arguments that containment policies were only protecting the most vulnerable at the expense of the general population, because the most vulnerable had disproportionately died in 2020 and management had improved. It's possible that a different set of policies would have resulted in disproportionately more QALYs lost by lower-risk demographics, due to the non-linear dynamics of disease transmission (don't forget rates of mutation). I don't really care to defend any policy, since there were a lot of avoidable mistakes, but I think the criticism should be more specific and measured.

(Edit: Scott's Lockdown Effectiveness: Much More Than You Wanted To Know, published July 1, 2021 - anyone know if there's been much change in the understanding of NPI effectiveness?)

The thing that gets me--and I will admit my loss of facts over the years-- is there's no counterfactual for how effective the vaccines were. I presume the peak numbers would have come down a little, but vs. what? Overall, it doesn't seem to me there's much evidence that the vaccines did anything as the course of the covid outbreak followed every other pandemic just at a different scale. All I get is, "Of course they worked, it's obvious. You're stupid."

The trials presumably produced adequate estimations of the vaccines' effectiveness. I think the problem with public perception was partly that low rates of other infectious diseases created the misconception that sterilizing vaccines are the norm, such that reports that a vaccine "merely" health risks to the recipient by 90% triggered the confirmation bias of anti-vaccine people. (One person repeatedly told me "They changed the definition of 'vaccine.'")

The trials presumably produced adequate estimations of the vaccines' effectiveness.

Against the variant circulating at the time. Which was extinct by the time the vaccines were released.

reports that a vaccine "merely" health risks to the recipient by 90%

Unfortunately we don't even really have enough evidence to quantify conclusively what the 'severity' benefit really was -- the initial trials were underpowered for anything to do with severity/death, and of course were terminated once the companies got their approval. (in that the control arm got real shots)

So there's no RCT to quantify this benefit, and the population-level studies are hopelessly muddled by a mixture of hard to correct for demographic confounders and sheer politics/CW. Plus all the different strains -- it's hard to say for sure, but seems clear that Omicron was very not-severe as compared to earlier strains -- so when a person got Covid is probably even more important than his vaccination status, severity-wise.

"Work" can mean a variety of things. It can be "does this reduce the average persons chance of death". But the version thats needed to justify mandates is a systemic/herd immunity effect that has failed to materialise even in 90%+ vaccinated populations.

Ah, stupid public, thinking 'vaccines make you immune to a virus' just because scientists have been putting exactly that in kids books and shows and songs, and saying it to the UN and African and Afghani warlords for the past 80 years.

If you don't think the establishment were deliberately relying on the public perception of vaccines being viral immunity you are cuckoo.

the establishment were deliberately relying on the public perception of vaccines being viral immunity

Who, specifically, and to what end?

This was the reasoning behind vaccine passports. If you were vaccinated, then you wouldn't be passing on the virus. I lived in a place that required vaccine passports to go entertainment venues. Grocery stores technically didn't require a vaccine passport but if you wanted to take your mask off you needed to show proof of vaccination first. The rationale behind these things is that the vaccinated can't (or are significantly less likely) to be infected and infect others.

These were public policies made by public health professionals. The public health professionals thought the vaccines reduced infection rates and that's why they set the policy the way they did.

These were public policies made by public health professionals. The public health professionals thought the vaccines reduced infection rates and that's why they set the policy the way they did.

They did believe this, but I also remember discussions about how privileges could incentivize vaccination. I think that was applied as an argument in both directions: It was a reason to allow vaccine passports rather than just keeping things closed altogether, and it was an argument for not loosening things up on those the speaker considered defectors against society.

Fortunately for me, my blue state tended to either open things up or close them rather than using a passport strategy, as I was both vaxxed and stubbornly opposed to proving it on principle.

I understand not remembering who specifically said it, but why are you acting like the idea is out there that you're literally unable to come up with a motive for it?

Fucking everybody bud. If the zeitgeist position on vaccines wasn't 'they make you immune' the politicians and the media wouldn't have been so cavalier about safety concerns. If your gish gallop needs names, start with Kamala Harris - "The vaccine will prevent you from getting covid."

The closest comparison here is the influenza vaccine, and I don't recall anyone saying that the influenza vaccine makes you immune from influenza.

At least in the US, colloquially they aren't called influenza vaccines, they're called "flu shots." Not sure on the origin of not calling them vaccines but my assumption has always been that it's because they don't reliably immunize against or prevent the flu.

Kamala Harris - "The vaccine will prevent you from getting covid."

Link?

I'm not finding it myself.

The closest I found was here, but it's explicitly about protection from hospitalization and death.

I'm not finding it either, even though I remember watching her say it, and mocking it with my friends so frequently I can remember the exact quote. And when I widened my search it got even better - apparently no US official ever said anything like that!

We are so fucked as a species.

Such purges of the digital past are an increasingly common part of the American electoral cycle.

Maybe you're thinking of Biden? https://youtube.com/watch?v=ciwyYnwYFaQ?si=nEANKgR7xGw6h2Vk

In ancient China, you would have believed a dragon was eating the sun. In your village, people would have made as much noise as possible—beating drums, pounding pots and pans, yelling—to scare the dragon off. When the sun reappeared, you would have sighed in relief. The dragon had flown off, and your village was safe.

It is obvious that they worked. This is how normal people understand things. Didn't we vaccinate everyone? And didn't the pandemic end soon after?

No — we vaccinated everyone and it kept going until Omni happened

We vaccinated, yes, but we also risk-compensated.

They kept track of death rates among the unvaccinated vs vaccinated (vs boosted, etc.), and it definitely looked like you wanted to be in the group whose first exposure to Covid spikes was of the artificial, non-exponentially-reproducing variety. Vaccine effectivity dropped off with time fast enough that there was no way to stop the disease from spreading, but at least we might have somewhat reduced the fatality rate from more of those first virgin exposures.

The obvious problem with those numbers is that this was anything but a Randomized Controlled Trial, and who knows what other differences those population groups had. IIRC I could find the data age-adjusted, but not controlled for anything else. There's a paradox where, if you tell everybody that e.g. square dancers live longer, you may soon find that square dancers really do live longer, not because it's better than other forms of exercise or whatever, but because now all the people who are doing a lot of other things to take care of their health have started square dancing too. Perhaps people who resisted taking a Covid vaccine are more oppositional toward other sorts of public health recommendations too, either with regard to Covid (letting themselves be exposed more easily) or to other contributing factors (obesity, smoking, "toughing out" serious infections, whatever).

The more subtle problem is that it's hard to tell how Covid-19 would have evolved in the presence of a more universally vaccinated population. Death rates fell way off with the Omicron variant, but would the virus inevitably have evolved in the same way at the same speed?

All I get is, "Of course they worked, it's obvious. You're stupid."

Ask if they think the FDA should have allowed the vaccine to be freely distributed and/or sold after it was first invented, in March 2020, without spending the next several months waiting on slow-but-legally-mandated testing methods and FDA approval before they could ramp up production. It's a little hard to get up on a "not trusting the system and taking the vaccine makes you a stupid anti-vaxxer" high horse when nearly half of the US deaths came during a time period when the system would have jailed anyone who gave you the vaccine.

What we needed were expedited Challenge Trials. The first thing I thought was ridiculous is how the virus was dangerous enough that it made sense to shut down everything, but not so important that we could do challenge trials for treatments on volunteers. I know many people who would have willingly been exposed to the virus to test out a treatment/vaccine.

A challenge trail would have shut down a lot of this vaccine effectiveness debate. Isolate a group of 400 people, vaccinate half, expose half of each group to the virus, and record the data. Hard to argue with that, fast results, save a million lives.

Ask if they think the FDA should have allowed the vaccine to be freely distributed and/or sold after it was first invented, in March 2020, without spending the next several months waiting on slow-but-legally-mandated testing methods and FDA approval before they could ramp up production. It's a little hard to get up on a "not trusting the system and taking the vaccine makes you a stupid anti-vaxxer" high horse when nearly half of the US deaths came during a time period when the system would have jailed anyone who gave you the vaccine.

Freely distributed, yes. Tough to say what the minimum level of safety testing should be needed for sales should be.

Ask if they think the FDA should have allowed the vaccine to be freely distributed and/or sold after it was first invented

I think they were wise not to do that. It would have opened up the whole issue of various more-or-less official requirements for getting this vaccine they hadnt pronounced safe yet, and the actually-existing controversy was peanuts compared to what that could have been.

Maybe I'm just feeling sentimental at the moment but I wanted to offer you a more personal 'good job on this comment' than an upvote would have been.

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