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 -
Yes, I suppose if you ignore all of the complexity and randomness that arises in a real confrontation, then I guess the risk is basically zero. Strong beats weak 100% of the time apparently.
Are you intentionally being hyperbolic or do you really not see any spectrum at all between being "a passive slab of meat" and strolling up and disarming the child with strong adult hands with absolutely zero fear or injury like a badass?
If you would like to assign numbers to your unearned confidence, what rate of adult deaths or serious injury in these confrontations would you accept as presenting a credible risk?
With a size and strength differential as large as between the average 12-year-old girl and the average adult man, I'd say >90% is a safe bet for success, and a coin toss for success without injury? The numbers are made-up nonsense of course, but that's my extremely rough guess.
The question was about whether there was a significant difference in the potential damage caused by children VS adults using axes, to which I strictly answer "Yes, in the situation the topic revolves around". If you posit some alternate setting, then feel free to adjust the parameters until they align with your goals.
As alluded to above, I'm not fond of these numbers games. Combining them with the vagueness of "presenting credible risk" doesn't help. And as far as the confidence goes...sure, it's unearned. I've never been in a life-or-death struggle against a 12-year-old girl armed with an axe.
I didn't posit an alternate setting to align with my goals. I posited a setting where you could plausibly trip on a rock as you go towards this assailant to dearm them.
I just don't know what to say if you think this is a totally contrived, imaginary scenario that I made up to align with my goals. People trip on rocks or stumble or something equivalent all the time, especially in surprising, violent situations.
Can you explain why this is suddenly an alternate setting that I've contrived? What about this is so unbelievable?
The understanding of potential damage which I have already set out should be clear. I of course do not mean that every swing is equivalent in direct strength. That would be absurd.
Edit: also, 90% chance of success is a fascinating statistic. You're telling me that a grown man has a 10% chance of failing (which means what, death, being irreversibly injured, the kid escapes, what?) and yet they should be completely confident and have little qualms about this confrontation because the potential damage is negligible. Do you routinely take approximate 10% chances on your life or well-being?
Yes you could trip on a rock. So could your assailant. It doesn't disadvantage you any more than your opponent. This sub-scenario that might make it easier for a little girl to kill you doesn't seem any more likely than the sub-scenario in which the little girl trips and you can disarm her with even greater ease.
Any of those, yes.
As I understand it, what you meant is, roughly, "the ability to kill with an axe". Which, yes, alright, a little girl has and an adult man has - but only if reduced to a binary without quantification. The little girl's ability to kill with an axe is far inferior to that of an adult man to do the same, and I would argue (as we have been going back and forth on for a while now) that an adult man even has a greater ability to kill without an axe than a little girl has with one.
They should be able to. Certainly they have the physical means for it. The "potential" damage as in worst-case is certainly severe and fatal, but the "expected" damage is far lower than that.
No. But neither am I routinely threatened by little girls with axes. I take great pains not to live in that kind of place, after all.
I do absolutely insist that an adult man should consider himself equipped and able to take that risk when it is called for. Especially when the alternative is, say, leaving his smaller kids to fend for themselves while he legs it.
While your odds of tripping on the rock might be about equal, it is certainly not equally disadvantageous. If I have 90 percent chance to win and I trip, Ive lost a lot of my expected value if I can then be felled by one neck chop. If they trip and I disarm them, that was just the expected outcome anyway. They start from 10 percent so a swing like that doesn't matter very much.
Like think about playing chess against Magnus Carlsen. If I can choose between both of us being well rested or exhausted, I will choose the latter, because me playing at my best does not matter one iota if he is playing at a mediocre level. I have a much better chance if we're both exhausted precisely because the disadvantage is not symmetrical based on our starting positions and expected values.
I agree their ability to kill is inferior, I don't agree with your initial comment that seemed to mock the very idea that a girl with a bladed weapon can be a threat to an adult man. 10% chance of death or maiming is quite high, as you seem to acknowledge. I also would not want to confront an unarmed and violent adult man.
Sure, if the alternative is leaving your own kids to be attacked, then seems like a good recommendation. Doesn't seem wise for a stranger to intervene as others were suggesting unless there's imminent threat to other vulnerable people
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