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 -
There's gotta be a line somewhere though, right?
If your child is reaching towards boiling water on the hot stovetop, you'd probably grab their hand to stop them, even though they might not be too badly burned, its not something you want them to risk, and a bad injury will very likely vastly diminish their quality of life in ways they can't easily predict.
So if you see your freshly 18-year-old daughter reaching towards the high-quality webcam and setting up an Amazon wishlist, especially if you notice a skeevy dude with tattoos and a pornstache whispering in her ear, you might feel some obligation to snatch her metaphorical hand away before she takes a step that is likely to diminish her quality of life in ways she can't easily predict.
SEE ALSO: STUDENT LOAN DEBT
I'm coming around to a social order that's like this. Ties into my musings on 'age of consent' discourse.
I don't think we need to prevent all harms everywhere. But if we're not going to go full Darwinian and let God sort things out, then the guardrails we do set up could be contoured much more wisely than they currently are, ESPECIALLY if we want to try and optimize around humanity's long term survival and (a value I have) expansion into space.
Same.
I just have lived long enough now to see that certain decisions people make can cause irreversible harm, and it would genuinely be a net good to divert them from those decisions long enough for them to actually become productive and self-assured before they actually accept the full risk of the behavior.
And I'm a radical individualist and anti-federalist! I'm not asking for there to be some big central bureau intervening in everyone's individual decisions! That has its own major problems.
Just a system that insures against the fat-tailed harms as best we can.
IF NOTHING ELSE, we need to be internalizing the externalities so the costs fall specifically on those who create the harms or indulge the vices, rather than the rest of us. Cue my other favorite rant.
See, neither of us disagree that there is scope for guard-rails or restrictions, we just disagree on where to put them. If we lived in a more enlightened and intelligent society, I would let my inner libertarian flag fly, and say that yes, society should allow every free sophont to own personal nuclear bombs or sell themselves into slavery.
Sadly, we live in a deeply imperfect world, with a lot of stupid people around who would not only screw themselves over (hey, it's their prerogative) but also impose substantial externalities. I don't mind second hand or indoor smoking being banned, but I do oppose a ban on cigarettes even if I don't use them. I am mostly okay with cigarettes being heavily taxed, which compensates for the externalities and has had meaningful and substantial reductions in popularity, at least in the UK.
The issue with the toddler analogy is that well, they're a toddler. I'm not sure even Von Neumann or Einstein were operating at the level of the average adult at 2 years old. Safeguards in place make sense. Adults/parents being able to override their autonomy is desirable.
But my 18 year old daughter? I would impose as much punishment as is legal, say threatening to cut her off from college funds or leave her life. But I wouldn't ask the government to make sex work illegal, that is going too far. At least some people, like Aella, do it while being far from stupid or poorly informed. Good for them, even if I don't particularly approve. I would sleep with Aella, I absolutely wouldn't marry her. But there are people willing to marry her (Bay Area autists for the most part), so it's not ruining her life. I don't want to ruin her life. I will sigh and look the other way.
Yep.
Right.
But should it be legal to, e.g. physically fight off the male interlopers who are pulling her into porn? Online grooming/blackmail gangs are a real thing. (That link is quite SFW but the implications are stomach-churning, fair warning) Maybe you can physically detain her for a period of time so she can't hang with the porno guys. That has legal precedent, after all. Maybe require her to wear a tracking bracelet outside the house. Of course, I'm told that's basically what parents do with their phones anyway.
I just find it interesting that you happily suggest using incentives to nudge her behavior around, but might balk at the idea of using even basic physical intervention. I am in agreement that creating a law that reins her in is too far.
Overall, I'm okay with "do your best to train your kid to use all common sense and restraint and to do the better thing, then let them go their own way."
I'm just not sold on the idea that 18 years of age is the correct checkpoint for many kids, and if we say its okay to use certain tactics to control their behavior before age 18, it runs into the same issue, why is it suddenly impermissible after they're 18? Your interest in their wellbeing hasn't shifted!
And no, I'm not limiting this to females. It might be useful to also prevent dudes from doing reckless and stupid stuff too. Its just that physically restraining a fully grown guy from doing a thing is a riskier proposition, for obvious reasons.
If there's an online grooming gang involved (and is it even grooming when we're talking about a legal adult?), then I would call the cops and ask them to take care of it, presuming that the activity was illegal.
I think physical restraint is, usually, a drastic escalation and violation of autonomy. My friends and family can pull me out of the way of a truck, but I'd yell at them if they stopped me from going out on a date with someone they don't like.
If my daughter told me she was going to attempt suicide, or do fentanyl, then I think I would do quite a few things that are clearly illegal, and damn the consequences. Starting an OF or doing sex work is not ideal, but not nearly as bad.
I have done plenty of things that my parents didn't approve of at that age. Some of those things went well for me, others... the opposite. A part of becoming an adult is realizing that the typical parent (mine and hopefully yours) is actually quite wise and knows what's good for you, even if they aren't omniscient.
I have my own issues with using age as the (primary) standard for capacity. I know 15 year old I'd trust to run a business, and 35 year olds who shouldn't operate a lemonade stand. I am too tired to go into exhaustive detail regarding the specifics of my views, but you can imagine something like a citizenship/adulthood/competence exam that anyone is allowed to try at any age. Nothing overly onerous, but enough to eliminate the idiots. You can pass it at 16 and legally emancipate yourself, or you might not make it till you're dying of old age if you're legitimately stupid. Then perhaps more demanding and specific tests for things that are quite clearly bad for you. Think Yudkowsky's Shop That Sells Banned Products.
You want to get surgery done by someone who isn't a licensed professional? Sure, pass this test of literacy and demonstrate an understanding of the principles of the Scientific Method and why med school is a good idea (you don't have to agree, you just have to understand), sign a few waivers, wait a week, and you're good to go. That includes waiving liability or the ability to seek compensation from the State.
If you break your spine while driving drunk, or lose your dick while fucking a blender, then I don't see why society should have to foot the bill. Maybe drug addicts who are violent, criminally inclined and disruptive and entirely unwilling to accept help shouldn't be eligible for housing or most welfare. If they're doing coke on weekends and making a million dollars a year as a quant, why the hell should I care?
Actual governments are demonstratively untrustworthy to design such an exam without creating a mostly but not completely metaphorical pile of skulls.
Driving exams? Flight certs? Medical training? The Bar?
You are conveniently eliding the fact that the current system has its own mountain of skulls.
Certainly the bottleneck governments impose on medical training has a pile of skulls associated with it, unless you think doctors are utterly useless.
Sure. I've literally had an argument a few days ago with Throwaway05 where I said that there's scope to make it easier to train more doctors even if it comes at a cost of quality.
This has been done - the more doctors at a cost of quality are nurse practitioners, physician assistants etc. "How should the healthcare system use midlevels and what is their appropriate scope of practice?" is a question where there has been a lot of jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction experimentation and where there is a lively debate within the healthcare world.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link