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 -
What? What does that make Joe? Do you force treatment on him?
Huh? I am talking about whether people who have sought services are entitled thereto.
Sorry, I mean Fred. Actually that frame is convoluted and stupid so forget all that, I'll start again - if you have a machine to directly analyze each applicant's brain and determine whether they are experiencing unhappiness then you don't define an "unhappy person" as anyone who feels he is unhappy, you define them based on your machine's measurements. You are just treating people who ask for treatment and not treating people who don't.
Also you are tacitly admitting that that definition is endlessly recursive and provides no information.
No. I am using the machine to determine whether they meet the criterion. The machine is not establishing the criterion. That is inherent in the process. If I said you have to weigh 100 lbs to safely ride the roller coaster, and weigh wannabe riders with my scale, then would you say "you don't define a "heavy enough person" as anyone who is heavy enough, you define them based on your machine's measurements"? I doubt it.
No, I am treating people who both 1) ask for treatment; and 2) qualify to receive treatment. Remember, I proposed the machine in response to the claim that "Since you have no first-hand knowledge of their unhappiness, you are smuggling into your definition “anyone who communicates he feels he is unhappy”." The machine gives me first-hand knowledge of applicants' unhappiness and lack thereof, and weeds out liars.
Yes, and by "weeding out liars" you are explicitly not defining an "unhappy person" as anyone who feels he is unhappy. Originally the qualification to receive treatment was "feels he is unhappy". Fred and Joe both feel the same. One calls himself happy, the other calls himself unhappy. Originally this was case closed, you treat Joe/Fred and don't treat Fred/Joe. But with your machine in the mix, one of them is wrong yes? According to your machine, which measures unhappiness, both of them are unhappy or both of them are happy. How they feel doesn't matter, if it did there would be no liars to weed out, because there are no lies to tell.
So yes, if we had a roller-coaster that does some tricky twists requiring a specific weight balance and so we needed to restrict riding it to people who weighed at least a hundred pounds, and you used scales to make sure everyone seated definitely weighed enough instead of eyeballing it in, I would say you defined heavy enough based on your scales, because that's precisely what you did. I would also be confused at our fight, and be worried you somehow took it as a remark on your abilities, and that you might try to eyeball in the next group to prove yourself. Since we are carny brothers operating what is clearly an unlicensed roller-coaster, I would then make sure our trailer was packed and hitched so we could ditch town the second the screaming started.
No, I meant that I am weeding out people who do not actually feel unhappy but claim that they do, in order to obtain free services. The machine is merely proof of how they feel. As I said, that was OP's objection: that I dont have direct evidence of how they feel, but rather only evidence of what they claim to feel.
Yes, that is what I am saying. It is impossible to weed out the liars when you define an "unhappy person" as anyone who feels he is unhappy. A happiness measuring machine is a necessary component when you require direct evidence of their happiness, relying on self identification will bankrupt you.
So you can say you define an "unhappy person" as anyone who feels he is unhappy, and maybe even believe it, but you are wrong, you use the measurements of your machine to define an "unhappy person",and declare anyone who fails to meet those measurements not an "unhappy person" even if they feel they are unhappy.
As I said, not if your feelings are simply brain characteristics that the machine can detect. If so, then it is impossible for a person to fail to meet those measurements yet be deemed not an "unhappy person" even if they feel they are unhappy. The feeling and the brain characteristics are one and the same. What IS possible is that a person can lie and claim that they feel unhappy despite not actually feeling unhappy.
Oh I see now, we're trying to be pedantic about two different aspects of the scenario. It's your machine though, so fair enough.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Without a definition of unhappy people cannot even themselves know if they are unhappy. They can't even lie if they wanted to because what would they be lying about?
Not if your feelings are a function of brain characteristics, and the machine measures those characteristics. Once again, the hypothesized machine was a response to a very specific claim: that "Since you have no first-hand knowledge of their unhappiness, you are smuggling into your definition “anyone who communicates he feels he is unhappy”. The machine allows me to ignore their communication, so no "smuggling in" in fact takes place.
Right, but without your machine we're back on unhappiness not actually meaning anything without a definition. Because for all we know one person's definition of unhappiness could be your internal state of orgasmic bliss. And you'd presumably be expect to treat those two states differently.
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
More options
Context Copy link