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, that's what I mean: it's literally insurance against catastrophic injury. I think that's one of the biggest flaws in the system, really: it conflates a health care plan with health insurance, when an awful lot of people would be perfectly fine with a bare-bones plan that only covers the latter, and then paying for the former out of pocket.
It’s a lot more than that. Obamacare requires Prep. Which I believe is $20k per year. I believe 4% of men are gay so if they all took it that alone adds like $1k/year to what insurance needs to charge to break even. And lots of other required coverages
One, I doubt that the cost of pre-exposure prophylaxis is greater than the cost of treatment for someone who has caught HIV.
Two, the more people become infected with HIV, the more opportunities it has to mutate, including mutations that would make it airborne or otherwise easily transmissible. If you ignore AIDS because "it's only killing gay people and drug users, and they don't matter", you run a not insubstantial risk of the first clause in that sentence no longer holding.
What would be effective policy to both maintain the current levels of HIV prevention and also reduce costs to taxpayers?
There's all kind of interesting lawfare going on these days. Could it be possible to follow the same kind of playbook that was used against Purdue Pharma?
Or perhaps dram shop laws?
Perhaps we should tax companies like Grindr (Tinder?) for facilitating HIV-transmission. Cities or other governments that publically glorify the homosexual and the drug-enthusiastic lifestyles (like Portland up until recently) should also be paying up on a federal level.
Once HIV infection is identified, we should be able to do some contact tracing, and make the most probable establishments that permitted the contamination (the last 3 bathhouses or bars visited by the infected within 3 days of probable infection) pay for the treatments.
If it appears that the infection occurred in a government-managed building or outdoors area, the government in question should be responsible for the treatments, unless they can prove that they have taken appropriate steps to mitigate possible infections.
In the spirit of the EEOC, HR departments, sexual harassment and discrimination trainings, I'm thinking of placards placed at regular intervals explicitly advising that anal masturbation and drug injections are formally prohibited in the area, the punishments associated with them, and the phone number to a confidential tip line to immediately address any possible incident.
Of course promotions, federal funds and contracts should be conditioned to how well these policies are applied.
We would need some new class of lawsuits similar to the ADA ones where any household or business harboring a rainbow or similar flag and symbols would be considered a supporter of the homosexual lifestyle and would have to contribute to a HIV-treatment fund, preferably through wage garnishment.
Figure out some way to produce anti-retrovirals more efficiently.
Buy out the patents and either void them or licence them for a peppercorn.
If someone develops a vaccine for HIV, or a cure for it, that would have a sizeable effect.
In general, things of the form 'everyone is still expected to contribute, either equally or in proportion to their means, to the costs of prevention; however, we will try to bring the total price tag downward.'
Your proposals, and others of the form 'total price stays the same, but we move the costs to my outgroup', are unlikely to be effective. 'I-got-mine-AMF-YOYO' attitudes have a rather nasty tendency to backfire.
It's not "I got mine". I'm more than happy to chip in for the healthcare of someone who got mauled in a freak alligator attack, but my enthusiasm drops suddenly when I find out they're an amateur alligator-wrestler.
Yes but to an extent everyone is an amateur alligator wrestler. Some people overeat, some people smoke, some people drink, some do extreme sports, or sports in general, some drive too fast, or pilot light planes and so on and so forth.
There are very few people who are utterly viceless when it comes to activities that increase the risk of illness or injury.
They're not amateur alligator wrestlers, they actually minimize their burden on society. They're more like the old men that used to go out "to hunt" in the dead of winter, knowing they will never come back.
Yes, but that doesn't mean anything. Saying "everyone is an extreme outlier, to an extent" is just saying "everyone is". "To an extent" nullifies the "extreme outlier" descriptor, which was the defining feature of the group I was pointing to.
Right, but everyone wants to minimise their own risk factors. Which is why the deal is we won't deny medical treatment to anyone. No-one can be trusted to objectively measure their own risks (I only overeat a bit!) against those of the people they dislike (they jump out of planes like lunatics!).
We are well aware that groups cannot be trusted to tell extreme outliers apart from non-outliers when social distaste is involved (as it pretty much always is) so our institutions have evolved to minimise that issue. Trying to go back to "this group doesn't deserve x because they do y" is opening the can of worms we just escaped from. We do it this way for a reason.
And smoking may kill people but it still puts a lot people in hospital for long painful treatment and decline. Smokers are not doing it so they die early in 30 years time after smoking 2 packs a day as some kind of honorable suicide. Plus the study that showed it was cheaper for smokers is contested. It was funded by Phillip Morris after all.
"This critique analyzes the methodology used in a study of the economic burden imposed on public finances in the Czech Republic by the consumption of cigarettes. The study was prepared by a consulting firm on behalf of the Phillip Morris Company. This critique, by using economic theory and a cost-benefit methodology, refutes the conclusion of the Phillip Morris study that smoking represents an economic benefit to Czech state finances. In fact, the correction of only one among numerous errors in assumptions and calculations in the Phillip Morris study leads to the opposite conclusion: Instead of savings of $150 million per year, smoking drains at least $373 million from the state budget annually, nearly.8% of the Czech gross domestic product. The net loss to the society is even greater if all pertinent costs and benefits are calculated properly. The critique demonstrates how to craft a rigorous economic response to common industry attempts to influence public opinion in which the industry employs specious or erroneous assumptions and data."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14982702/
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