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 -
People who understand both betting and polling (of whom Nate Silver is the most prominent) are saying that the prediction markets are entirely consistent with the polls - Republicans doing well enough to hold onto 50 senate seats would require correlated polling errors* within the published margin of error, which is entirely consistent with a 28% probability. (As was the case with the 2016 and 2024 Presidential elections). Republicans holding the House would imply a polling miss of world-historical proportions. This should not be a 5% real-world probability, but it is well known that 5% implied probability on a sportsbook does not correspond to 5% probability on the real-world measure because (i) gamblers overback longshots and (ii) backing a sure thing at 19-1 on/1.05/-1900 odds isn't as profitable as it looks because it locks up a lot of money.
Polling isn't (and never was - 1992 in the UK remains infamous in the industry) good enough to call close elections, and the 2026 Senate election is close.
* The difference between Nate Silver's measured bullishness on Clinton immediately before the 2016 election and less numerate poll-driven pundits thinking that she had it in the bag was that a lot of stupid people didn't understand why polling errors are correlated by default.
The thing that has always been most curious to me: How many people vote for the wrong person? Like, literally vote by mistake. They walk in planning to vote for Rogers, they sit down at the table and vote for Rogers, they walk out and would tell you that they voted for Rogers, but they actually filled out their ballot for Sayed.
It clearly can't be zero. That would be impossible. Speaking particularly currently as the father of a newborn, no comparable task has 100% accuracy rates.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link