site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34515 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 6, 2023

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.

16
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Meanwhile, the other one was just way off. Like 30 percent off the ratios. The problem is there's no good reason humans have for altering the isotope ratios of a simple metal like magnesium. There's no different properties of the different isotopes, that anybody, at least in any of the literature that is public of the hundreds of thousands of papers published, that says this is why you would do that. Now you can do it. It's a little expensive to do, but you'd have no reason for doing it.

Why would anyone irradiate magnesium to make these weird isotopes and drop it off for people to find? Surely this could only happen artificially. Are we proposing that some freak natural occurrence leaves behind some irradiated magnesium right next to a 'UAP', which in your mind is a completely separate bizarre natural occurrence?

It's like the theory that Epstein managed to kill himself in an anti-suicide room AND that the camera failed just when he did so. Two connected simultaneous unexplained events? Surely it is more plausible that there's an orchestrating party involved.

Furthermore, 25 people are dead! Either Havana Syndrome was real or there's another kind of energy that's killing people, or the professor is lying.

People with credentials are wrong all the time, and 95% of other people with credentials would dispute UFOs generally

Well they weren't with him in the lab, measuring the isotopes or examining the brains. I'm confident that 95% of people with credentials would opt out of disputing people who had seen the evidence, when they themselves have not.

Are we proposing that some freak natural occurrence leaves behind some irradiated magnesium right next to a 'UAP', which in your mind is a completely separate bizarre natural occurrence?

yeah, because 'UFO sightings' happen all the time, and in lots of places, which is a lot of opportunities for a second coincidence. A paper about that magnesium notes

There is undisputed evidence that an aircraft crashed in that area in April 1957. There is strong evidence that a meteorite, or an object resembling a meteorite, crashed or exploded in the area in the early 1930's, and that a piece of strange light-weight material was caught in a fishing net at about that time. There is weaker evidence (mainly from one witness) that a very large object disintegrated, with a silent explosion, near Ubatuba in or about 1957. There is some evidence that, in or about 1957, one or more metal specimens were brought for analysis to an Air Force research center near S¼o Paulo and found to be magnesium.

So maybe it was from a meteorite, which would ... well, it's an "unidentified aerial phenomena" to the viewer, but not in the sense of 'unexplainable' or 'aliens'. You can google things too, btw!

Furthermore, 25 people are dead! Either Havana Syndrome was real or there's another kind of energy that's killing people, or the professor is lying.

He claims they died from these strange injuries. That might not be true, though. These people were

almost all defense or governmental personnel or people working in the aerospace industry

Government + defense + aerospace is a very large group of people to start from!

You have a smorgasbord of patients, some of whom had heard weird noises buzzing in their head, got sick, etc. A reasonable subset of them had claimed to have seen UAPs and some claimed to be close to things that got them sick

So some of them saw UAPs, some of them were sick ... but if you put normal people who claim to see UAPs in a group with people who have unrelated brain issues, or maybe allow enough time for some to die of old age, and you can have a group that's partially 'UAP injured people' where '25 died' without the UAPs causing it.

I'm confident that 95% of people with credentials would opt out of disputing people who had seen the evidence, when they themselves have not.

... when the evidence is for UFOs zapping peoples brains by "emitting so much energy that you're basically getting burned inside your body"? Or for isotopic magnesium that's part of an alien craft? A lot more than 5% of 'people with credentials' would dispute it.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats