site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   44987 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 5, 2022

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.

105
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I agree with much of what you said and want to add an additional layer - everywhere outside of "performance enhancing drugs", Americans are obsessed with pharmaceutical intervention to make their lives easier. This is true from psychoactive drugs of questionable efficacy to spamming statins and diabetes medications on every sedentary middle-aged patient that could probably fix their metabolic health through non-pharmaceutical means. People take medications for all sorts of things and don't feel even the slightest bit of shame that they've damaged their minds and bodies to the point that they require daily chemical alteration to avoid falling apart.

But if I wanted EPO simply because I think it would be neat to ride my bike up hills faster? Nope! Somehow that is where we draw the line and decide that this isn't just a bad idea, but downright unethical. I won't make a penny doing it, I'd be happy to pay for the drug out of my pocket, but somehow we've decided that there are classes of drugs that are simply beyond the pale. The same goes for various steroids that would improve my fitness and strength, effectively making me a better version of myself.

Can you imagine the absolute shitfit that would be thrown if anyone in a position of power suggested that all people who require psych meds should be thrown out of the military?

Or the shit fit that was thrown when some people who take the same hormones were going to be disqualified from military service.

While this is true, saying "americans" suggests other modern countries are less so. China/asian countries do similar, although sometimes using different interventions. I'd guess europe is similar to america, although with less spending.

I don’t know about being thrown out of the military but being on many common phsyc meds (I.e. anti depressants) can make it difficult or impossible to enlist in the first place https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/military-recruiting-process-faqs.html/amp

(See section 9 on anti depressants)

Americans are obsessed with pharmaceutical intervention to make their lives easier.

Probably because they work. People have this notion that millennia ago people lives long heathy lives without modernity. I think this Romanized view ignores that people live and died of chronic pain and other conditions that today can be treated. Urinary tract infections and such.

But if I wanted EPO simply because I think it would be neat to ride my bike up hills faster?

agree but for drug tested competitions obviously it seems unfair taking drugs. I otherwise see no problem if athletes want to take drugs..their choice. But then you have to deal with the issue of externalities. If some of these people are getting sick and need healthcare for PED complications or develop chronic conditions later in life from use, this imposes a public cost.

Americans are obsessed with pharmaceutical intervention to make their lives easier.

And That's A Bad Thing because, in most cases, meds don't mend. Do you see this obsession with medication as a positive characteristic? Sure, it's arbitrary to draw the line an PEDs, but are you saying there shouldn't be a line?

I also see it as a bad thing, but think it's even worse that effective enhancements are seen as immoral while patching over bad behavior is seen as totally normal.

"Bad behavior" is a tricky thing. Never using your automobile for anything that isn't absolutely necessary reduces your chance of dying, but we don't say that it's immoral to treat someone for injuries suffered when they drive to visit their relatives for the holidays and get in an accident.

In other words, pretty much any "behavior" has an effect on your life expectancy. Claiming that we shouldn't treat people for medical problems related to their behavior is equivalent to saying that we shouldn't treat them for anything at all except a few edge cases.

The argument "they're imposing a public cost by their behavior" is really an argument against all publically funded medical treatments--that is, publically funded medical treatments are bad because they create incentives to restrict behavior, not the other way around.

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