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 -
"Trump fires Bureau of Labor Statistics chief without evidence for political reasons" says the news radio I wake up to, then continues to say he removed the Democrat appointee "without concrete evidence." Since COVID-19 caused lockdowns, the BLS numbers have been revised downward from initial reports regularly, sometimes ridiculously so, which Axios says has justifiable reasons.
So why are the initial numbers even reported if we know the algorithm they use will be wildly inaccurate?
The whole "without evidence" tic is pretty played out at this point. Of course, Trump does have evidence -- the revisions are higher than usual. It's pretty bad evidence (so "without concrete evidence" is true), but it's enough to make "without evidence" naked editorializing.
BLS has been putting out these numbers monthly for many years; I am sure if they proposed delaying the releases two months there would be all sorts of complaints about that too.
Trumps own former BLS chief himself doesn’t like it. And it includes this very damning quote:
Other articles note that usually, initial estimates are based on larger employers, and smaller ones take longer to report. Savvy consumers of the stats know this. Also, what size company has been hit hardest by recent market uncertainties including tariffs? Small employers. The variance is higher.
If a number feels off is your evidence, and it’s plausible or even likely that the explanation could be explained by either malice OR the underlying stats actually being off, it’s still “no evidence” in a statistical sense. We need DETAILS to be able to assess the claim, and Trump provided none, and furthermore if his own former guy says that the chief doesn’t even see the numbers until they are nearly fully assembled, we have strong reason to be skeptical and zero actual reason to trust him (beyond a baseline level of trust in Trump himself).
What does the commissioner... do, then? This feels like the scene from Office Space with the Bobs.
The commissioner is a people person. He takes the figures from the statisticians to the politicians.
Does he physically hand them over?
No, he faxes it. Sometimes the secretary sends the fax.
The commissioner is the boss, in charge of all the people who do things. Or more likely in charge of several layers of sub-bosses before you get to the people who do things.
Which is why the quote isn't damning; with that authority comes the responsibility as well.
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