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 -
Underdetermination is exactly why reversing stupidity doesn’t get you intelligence.
Let’s say your opponent is a rock carved with the phrase “DRINKING MERCURY WILL KILL YOU.” It would be fair to say “I can’t trust that the underlying paradigm here is compatible with mine.” Great. That gets you back to a state of Cartesian doubt; feel free to ignore the rock and do your own research. What it does not endorse is reversing the message. The most information you can get by rejecting paradigms is zero.
I agree, that is why I wrote:
I also agree, I'd say that in my Christian worldview there is not only lack of ontological substance of evil but also of a lie, Steresis aletheias. There is infinite way of how to be wrong, but only one way to be correct in my theology. In other theologies there is only infinite ways of being wrong without any metaphysicaly objective way of aiming toward truth, as this objective truth does not even exist.
Carthesian doubt was not deep enough. He did not doubt time or language for instance. His cogito ergo sum should in proper sceptical tradition be something like sgdsjvfdngfd lshgfk h lsng, only even more stupid, as he should doubt meaning of very language.
This cannot be true as there should be way to doubt your paradigmatical grounds, otherwise it is just pure dogma. In other words you are just asserting grounds of your paradigm as correct without any justification, thus basically creating a new fairy tale.
More options
Context Copy link
Assuming conflict theory, that your opponent is not just someone who disagrees with you, but someone who wants to hurt or destroy you, there is more information there than zero. The information you now have is "someone who wants to hurt me wants me to read DRINKING MERCURY WILL KILL YOU". You can interpret this at whatever level you want to, Vizzini-style, but the either way your opponent thought it advantageous to display that message. Probably it's wisest to ignore it for that reason, but that too can be used against you.
Yes, but that’s separate from appealing to Stanford philosophy articles about paradigms.
When Georgioz says there’s no The Science, no privileged position, that gets him to neutrality. To get back to pro-lab-leak he has to adopt some other paradigm.
I don't see how any other paradigm than Conflict Theory is necessary to update in favor of the lab leak explanation. That scientific establishment was fanatically enforcing a zoonotic origin explanation in the face of the overwhelming common sense possibility of a lab leak, early in the investigation before they could have realistically have had all that much certainty, is not not a neutral act. Such strong narrative control is in itself at least evidence in favor of there being something to cover up, that the narratives that would emerge absent such control would be damaging to the scientist class, which increases the likelihood of the lab leak theory.
Also they were caught systematically destroying evidence and sabotaging oversight, and they repeatedly lied to the public and the authorities about their actions, uniformly in ways that minimized or hid evidence that would indicate personal responsibility for the pandemic.
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