site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   14790 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

Yes, and the flu shot has very similar but quieter opposition as the Covid vaccine- working class conspiracy theories that it spreads illness, shortens lifespans to save social security, doesn’t work at all but big pharma bribes employers to push it, etc are a dime a dozen.

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.

People calling them "shots" or "jabs" (like for Covid) instead of vaccines probably has less to do with anything like that and more with it being shorter to say words with one syllable instead of two.

I'm not so sure on "jabs" -- AFAIK this is good idiomatic British English, but much less so in North America. It feels like the sudden memetic adoption (particularly on the part of medical authorities, which I'd expect to use more formal language as a rule) of this word here in particular has something more behind it than brevity.

"Shots" of course I buy -- "getting the dog his shots" is a fine thing to say; "getting the dog jabbed" would be very weird (in North America). Doubly so if the speaker were my veterinarian.

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

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