site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   38000 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 27, 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.

11
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That’s fair. But I also think that since the advent of the zone read, any QB that can average even say 5 YPC and 6-10 carries a game gives his offense an extra man in the run game.

With any contract, teams want to pay for future performance and I think there’s consensus Jackson’s demands are optimistic. At the same time, even if he regresses on the ground he has some room to fall before he’s no longer effective.

I think running QBs fall off much more than passing QBs because their success as a passer is a bit of a mirage. It is because of the running threat. Thus a small decrease in running effectiveness can lead to a large decrease in passing effectiveness.

I think this is true. For example, the parent listed RG3 as an example of a quarterback who could only run, not throw. This wasn't always true. In fact, RG3 holds the NFL record for the highest passer rating by a rookie. And his passer rating in college was one of the highest ever. It's only in the rear view mirror that RG3 is seen as an ineffective passer. He got injured and his career tanked.

RG3 was a better pure passer than Lamar Jackson. If Jackson loses his ability to run, his value to an NFL team will fall to zero.

I’d like to see some data and a large sample. And only looking at Jackson, his QBR has been meh the last three years while his YPC have fluctuated from 6.3 to 5.8 to 6.8.

Worth pointing out before you look at the data that QBR takes into account rushing. I was referring to passer rating which does not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_quarterback_rating

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer_rating

You can’t win the Super Bowl with an “effective” QB on a massive contract. You either need an elite QB on a massive contract, or you need an effective QB on a tiny contract that you can build a great team around.

Eli Manning was about as average as it gets and won two Super Bowls with large contracts. He was somewhat cheaper than contemporaries, but not much.

Of course, I wouldn't try to build a team with that pattern, but it's not necessarily a complete disaster.

No one said otherwise, above. But it’s not impossible — Peyton Manning’s 2015-16 salary was $18M (high for that year), and he was cooked in his final season. (I hope he still thanks Von Miller for that last ring).

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