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 -
It certainly seems like whether iran is shooting at ships or not would have a substantial effect on how many ships are transiting the strait. Surely you understand this right? Surely you understand why it's dumb to use data from when it isn't to infer about transits when it is?
Which returns to the point that the data span limit you are quibbling about doesn't actually change whether it supports the point being made- not least because if it did, you'd be raising the data implications under the different boundary, as opposed to fixating on the boundary rather than the data
This is, of course, entirely separate from how yoor your understanding of the boundary and data in question is. Such as the not-quite implicit claim that there is a meaningful time-boundary of whether Iran is shooting at ships or not. One of the common critiques/mockings of the Trump cease fire is that there's a lot of fires going on, typically starting with Iran shooting ships in the Strait. Almost as if, say, if Iran were consistently willing to shoot at ships regardless. Were Iran willing to shoot at ships regardless, you'd have an easy correlation versus causation fallacy risk of whether Iranian shootings in a period are because they are more willing to attack, or because they have more opportunities to act on a relatively consistent desire. It'd be almost as bad as if you based an argument of strait traffic on the week of the Iranian state funeral.
But BahRam's argument is not based on 'look at this trend of the week of the funeral,' the period of exceptionally fewer attack attempts where the data was roughly cut off. It is based on the increase of shipping through the strait that begins well before the funeral impact on Iranian willingness to shoot. The funeral ceasefire-adherence is not the cause of the trend being pointed at. The recent funeral ceasefire does not change the nature of the trend before the funeral ceasefire.
Complaining that the not-even-arbitrary stopping point of a data set is at a particular part of an event cycle is dumb if the conclusion isn't based on the end point of the data itself. It would only be a meaningful objection of cutting off too early if the subsequent data disproves the thesis- but this is not the claim you have made.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link