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 -
Well, it's not really a logical proof, just a statement on how I see no other practical way to do any of this.
Even if I put my mind to it, it doesn't seem trivial. Is opening fire on anyone who ever published and/or signed one of these statements be acceptable? Between online journals, scholarly databases, and LLMs this could probably automated, but does Trump have levers to pull that target with this level of precision? Would it hold up in court? Wouldn't the backlash / objections to it nbe effectively the same, as people like Guyatt start crying that theybjust wanted to do science, and didn't even read what they were signing?
I find this to be, frankly, borne of ignorance and lack of creativity. That is, similar to what I wrote here, it scans to me like "Joe Sixpack" bloviating on Middle East politics. Perhaps some of that is epistemic helplessness, seeing for example the classic hapax legomenon about Afghanistan, then just casually coming to the conclusion that all is hopeless and we should just nuke 'em all and turn the sand into glass. There's no sense of theory of war/politics involved, no understanding of the concepts behind consolidating gains, just shooting from the hip without much thought.
Even here in your latest comment, you seem to grasping for something to 'work' (you don't use the word, but ISTM that it's what you're going for), but there's no sense of what 'working' is. There's not even really a well-formed goal. Just a vague sense of these people seem bad, and it seems complicated, and I don't know what to do, so I'll just go in blastin'.
Sure, guilty as charged. Academia is not my world, and to the extent I'm familiar with it, the system I know is not even located in your country. There very well may be effective tools that have more subtlety than a megaton bomb. I'd love to be educated on what they are, and how they work.
I'm a little bit hurt by the second charge, but sure, you're a smart guy, and I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest, if you could come up with something that would blow my idea out of the water.
Not quite.
It's not "just a vague sense of these people seem bad". It's a very specific sense of these people using deliberate infiltration (the response in BMJ citing the SPLC designating SEGM as a "hate group") and harrasment (activists accosting Guyatt and his staff at their place of work, and online) tactics to yield concessions from institutions (cutting off the working relationship with SEGM), that contradict their stated principles (McMaster's statement claiming transgender care is medically necessary), which they can then use to their advantage in future fights (any other university considering work with SEGM will either come across the scandal when vetting the organization and get cold feet, or in the event they don't, activists can forward it to them once any such future relationship is discovered. The "medically necessary" statement can also be used to persuade and/or sue any healthcare insurer or provider refusing these treatments). This isn't a singular case, it's a blueprint they worked off for years. I'd say that's quite specific, and not vague at all.
Something needs to be done to break that chain, and ideally roll back their previous victories. Is it complicated? I don't know, if I was the King of Academia, I think I could solve the issue effectively, and without resorting to nuclear fire, but I'm not, and such a position doesn't seem to exist to begin with. Again, I'm all ears if there's a clean, subtle, and effective solution. I won't even insist on it's quick results, if I can be reasonably assured of it's effectiveness.
This seems pretty apart from a core problem within academia.
Uh, likewise? That's sort of just a general phenomenon that exists in a variety of places?
Yeah, uh, the same?
I'm really struggling to see how any of this is actually about academia qua academia. There's almost nothing here about the typical workings of academia, interactions with the federal government, levers that could be pulled, specific goals to be accomplished.
Big picture, it seems like most of this is that there is some influence on academia's decision-making, and that influence is political in nature and bad. ISTM that the goal would be some form of reducing that influence or the effectiveness thereof, rather than detonating all of academia, itself. Would that at least be a reasonable statement of a plausible goal?
Wait, when you said "these people" you meant academics? I thought we're talking about progressives. I don't think academics are bad, though I'm extremely frustrated with their complicity. In fact, the reason I'm all Something Must Be Done about this whole thing, is that I think academia is pretty important to society.
Yeah, but the reduction has to be pretty drastic (even if it takes time). The levels of their dominance over the institution seems to be fairly massive.
Perhaps this was all just a bit of confusion. I was responding to your bit:
where the internal link was to funding cuts to academia, with the context being whether or not there were goal-oriented, somewhat tailored ways of approaching it compared to what I've perceived in these fora as calls for 'indiscriminate chemotherapy'. So, I guess, I'm not really sure what you're meaning or going for.
I think I already linked it, but it might not have been worth the time to read it before, but here is some context, with links to prior discussions where I was pushing back against the 'indiscriminate chemo' calls, culminating in the more recent cuts being targeted and linked to institutional behavior.
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
More options
Context Copy link