site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   44952 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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yesterday’s conspiracy theory is today’s quiet admission

Bare link post: The Federalist covers the latest CDC admission about the vaccine: the myocarditis risk among the young and healthy is larger than official sources claimed.

Along with the recent addition of Ivermectin to the list of possible effective treatments, I believe this vindicates the front-line doctors and makes mass murderers of the censors, as well-intentioned as those who smashed sparrows for Mao.

I believe this vindicates the front-line doctors and makes mass murderers of the censors, as well-intentioned as those who smashed sparrows for Mao.

Something I've been thinking a lot about as I see a well-intentioned president Trump struggle against the power in this country is the fallibility of human government. Are you sure you're not overreacting to human fallibility?

Trump was on the right side of history, and I think it's important to retain belief that there is a right side of history and people can be on it.

The CDC was more concerned about getting the vaccine out than perfect safety. Does that really make them mass murderers?

Trump was on the right side of history, and I think it's important to retain belief that there is a right side of history and people can be on it.

Was he? It's his vaccine, as he proudly claimed.

The CDC was more concerned about getting the vaccine out than perfect safety. Does that really make them mass murderers?

IIRC, the CDC postponed the vaccine until after the election, whereas Trump wanted it out before the election. I don't see how you can praise Trump as "right" while comdeming the CDC as vaccine hawks, when Trump was pressuring them to release it earlier than they did.

Was he? It's his vaccine, as he proudly claimed.

Hot take - the existence of the vaccine is good, as was the rushed development process. The mandatory dosing of everyone, regardless of risk analysis for various cohorts, was bad.

Wait, are you telling me Trump ordered the FDA to bypass safety protocols to get the vaccine out??

Is that an honest question or are trying to twist someone's words?

In either case, the status of the vaccine around the timing of the election is known. Eric Topol has been very vocal about his part in delaying the vaccine until after the election. We've since learned that Pfizer, who Topol said he successfully targeted, decided to simply stop processing lab samples in order to delay approval until after the election:

Gruber said that Pfizer and BioNTech had decided in late October that they wanted to drop the 32-case interim analysis. At that time, the companies decided to stop having their lab confirm cases of Covid-19 in the study, instead leaving samples in storage. The FDA was aware of this decision. Discussions between the agency and the companies concluded, and testing began this past Wednesday [ed: the day after the election]. When the samples were tested, there were 94 cases of Covid in the trial. The DSMB met on Sunday.

Is that an honest question or are trying to twist someone's words?

Honest question.

In either case, the status of the vaccine around the timing of the election is known. Eric Topol has been very vocal about his part in delaying the vaccine until after the election. We've since learned that Pfizer, who Topol said he successfully targeted, decided to simply stop processing lab samples in order to delay approval until after the election:

So the FDA postponed the vaccine until after the election in order to deny Trump a victory??

The role the FDA played in the delay isn't quite clear. Pfizer revised their protocol after discussion with the FDA, but there's no evidence that this was politically motivated. Protocols get revised sometimes.

Their decision to halt testing samples seems to have no other explanation except to delay any announcement of progress until after the election.

Had they not decided to halt testing of samples, they would have met their revised 62 case threshold prior to the election. Had they not submitted for approval at that point it would have been more obvious that they were dragging their feet.

Considering the lenghts they and their allies went to discredit any other viewpoint for something on the level of an Influenza, it could be argued that at the very least they are incompetent. But if we take in consideration:

1.- The level of coordination between the parties (intended or unintended as part of the Protect the Narrative campaign)

2.- That there is a high chance Ecohealth efforts and by proxi Faucci's whole cabal are indirectly responsible for the pandemic

3.- That even after it was grokked out that it wasn't Ebola or the Black Death in airborne form, the mayority of the catedral refused to actualize priors.

4.- And that we will never know the why, how and when of the Pandemic due to the collusion of the Chinese CCP and gain of function establishment.

I would say that yeah, at least indirectly responsible of mass murder. And that is without taking into account the Nursery homes murders in New York and elsewhere (Minesota I think) and events like that. There wasn't self policing, just like with any other progressive cause as of late. Just an intransigency to give an inch on any front.

Explain to me, if you would, your preoccupation with Fauci.

All I know is the government said take the vaccine, so I took it. I knew there was a chance of side effects but I judged them to be negligible. Vaccines aren't scary.

1.- He lied to congress with the "Gain of function" research by torturing the meaning of words.

2.- He is part of inhuman experimentation in dogs (inhuman in that they could anesthetize them instead of letting them suffer like it was reported)

3.- In his own words "He is the science", sounds too Palpatine for my tastes. If I wanted an emperor I would want a competent one.

4.- His continual refusal to condemn the BLM riots as a health concern.

I think you've become overpoliticized on this.

Faucci became overpoliticized, I just have memory longer than a goldfish. If you just wanted to defend him, may as well have said so from the beginning intead of acting all coy and "asking questions".

If you don't want to face questions I think you're in the wrong place.

And I repeat, If you just wanted to defend him, may as well have said so from the beginning instead of acting all coy and "asking questions" and when answered then launch ad hominem attacks. You may want to drop the passive-aggressiveness.

It was not and is not a "vaccine."

I don’t think a blank endorsement of any president is a good idea, especially Trump.

At the end of the day you need someone who recognizes that American government has to be for Americans, and that's Trump.

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