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 -
Hold up. Weren't they aware or should they not have been aware of the structural defect from the moment they decided to provide that insurance?
In the UK it is common for residential buildings to be >200 years old. Nobody was aware, even the surveyor didn't notice. Just one day part of the building fell down and the insurer said (paraphrased) 'okay, you had an insurance policy but it doesn't cover anything that happens because of gradual decline, or gradual damage, or structural issues, or...'. In theory they should be aware that old buildings sometimes have these issues but in practice they refuse to pay out.
It's not that I don't get where insurers are coming from on these kinds of cases, it's just that in reality they rule out basically any of the actual causes of big expensive problems which makes the policy kind of worthless. They sell the illusion of safety on their advertising materials without any actual intent to provide it. You're always taking a gamble on whether they come through for you or dig in their heels.
I agree. Isn't it the alleviation of big, unpredictable disasters that result in ongoing costs that insurance as an institution was invented to do in the first place?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link