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 -
Like I said, it's not new. What's new is that the voice of the UK Government Establishment is endorsing what 12 months ago the vast majority of users here would have dismissed as an absurd conspiracy theory. And that their various shills are trying to play it off as NBD.
Who's "engaging in misinformation" now.
Are you serious? Source that.
Example.
Grandparent : blames gof research, 20 upvotes. Parent : calls the mainstream belief 'bat psyop', 11 upvotes. Child : thinks genomics shows it's 80% not gof, 3 upvotes.
Lol with all the reddit talk here recently I forgot we moved off site and assumed he was talking about redditors - maybe he was doing the same?
More options
Context Copy link
Hlynka needs to feel he's somehow different from the rest of us.
That said, there were several high-profile users pushing the mainstream line.
It’s bizarre how he manages to conflate one of the most reflexively contrarian groups with the mainstream they constantly bitch about.
Does the mainstream think we’re mainstream? We were forced to flee our home more than once because the mainstream started encroaching. Neither them nor us think we're mainstream. What does it mean if enemies agree on a particular point? The argument's also valid for his usual claim that we're all progressives or something.
At least give us an example, the mythical group that is appropriately skeptical of the mainstream.
More options
Context Copy link
Would you even disagree with that?
Of course. The most flak he gets is for pretending his unremarkable, motte-popular opinions make him the lone, brave prole telling us over-educated sheep what’s what. Case in point : Airing some standard anti-mainstream talking point we all love while assigning the opinion of a guy called "token_progressive" to the sub as a whole.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah. He has a few differences of opinion (as do I, BTW), but I think he fits right in. His antagonism towards educated city-dwelling alt-right left-wing progressives seems a bit forced.
'Fit in' isn't the same as 'different from,' which seems a bit of a motte and bailey. Who, specifically, is like Hylenka in nature and style, including his defining experiences that he regularly admits to, his personality and style, and his willingness to be direct to the point of offense?
Hlynka's never claimed to be a unique opinion, to my knowledge.
Everybody's different in nature and style from everybody else here. When I originally said "different from", I meant a fundamental worldview difference (by which I don't even mean a difference of opinion, but a huge difference in how he looks at, and understands the world). At least I thought that's what he's getting at with his inferential distance series, but every time he posts one of those I'm left scratching my head as to where is the distance suppose to be.
That's what makes it an inferential distance. I've been running into the same problem for a while. It's not hard to show that there is a difference; see the conversation starting here for a recent example. What's hard is being understood across the gap, because there's a massive number of assumptions that aren't shared, and so can't be used to build a common understanding. What you get is people either rounding you to agreement, or people assuming you're talking out your ass. Neither are productive, and solutions have to date been elusive. I've got an effort-post about a third of the way written that I'm hoping might help, we'll see how it goes if I can get it finished.
The first time I heard the term was a progressive in our community saying something like "if you believe this, the inferential distance is so great that I don't think I can bridge the gap". I don't remember what "this" was referring to, but it was something so basic that it was obvious to me it will be hard for a person that believes it to understand where person who believes the opposite of it is coming from.
By contrast any time Hlynka tries to show where the inferential gap is, I'm just flabbergasted at why he thinks the modal Mottizen disagrees with him on it. I'm sure there are a handful of Rousseauians running around here somewhere, but to use that as an example of core disagreement from which all misunderstandings between us and him sprout from is absurd. People might not hop on the Hobbes train, but I'm pretty sure the majority would at least agree Rousseau was wrong.
That, combined with his characterization of specific majority opinions here ("the vast majority of users here would have dismissed as an absurd conspiracy theory") makes me think that either the inferential gap does not exist, and the conflict between us and him is imagined, or it does exist, and he's failing to understand us at least as much as we're misunderstanding him.
Is that an example of inferential distance, or an example of object level disagreement? I feel like "Enlightenment bad" is something reasonable people can disagree over. I can see why the exchange you linked was frustrating to you, but I don't think it's due to some fundamental misunderstanding, as much as simple stubbornness that often comes up in internet debates.
I am looking forward to your effort post on the subject though, maybe you'll have better luck shedding light on this.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I see. And that along with the US Dept. of Energy's "low confidence" assessment of it being a lab leak does suggest there's some classified information that hints in the direction of a lab leak that can't be made public.
I'm pretty conformable pinning that one the newspaper publishing a detailed article doing lots of hinting at facts they can't support that contradict published research they ignore. Maybe they know something they can't share, but they haven't provided much reason to believe them in that article.
I think that you are acting very naive, if not outright stupid.
I'm just asking you to actually make an argument. I can think of plenty of (not mutually exclusive) steelmans for the lab leak theory:
Strong priors for lab leak, so evidence for market hypothesis not updating you very far in that direction. I'm guessing this is the one you mean by calling me "outright stupid"?
The scientists saying the evidence points towards the market hypothesis are intentionally misrepresenting the data, presumably because the concept of lab leaks make scientists as a whole look bad, although maybe also the specific scientists are under pressure from various governments or institutions to help cover up a lab leak.
The scientists saying the evidence points towards the market hypothesis are being misled and credulous. e.g., China's cover-up included releasing data that points in that direction and omitting the data that doesn't.
Some form of "both": i.e., lab leak via the market, either by animals or humans infected at the lab spreading via the market, so the market spread science is all true, but not indicative of spread from a wild animal.
More options
Context Copy link
More light, less heat, please.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link