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 -
No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that as I understand it they do not provide an objective definition at all. Whether that is good policy or not, I don't know (but note that they seem to think it is, presumably because they want to err on the side of caution by providing services as broadly as possible).
Again, it depends on the purpose of the definition. Suppose I had a rule that says that men must open doors for women. Why? Because women get great satisfaction when that is done; they are aggrieved if that is not done (even if that is irrational); men don't care one way or the other; and we want to maximize total utility. In those circumstances, someone with a penis who identifies as a woman will be aggrieved if doors are not opened for them, and pleased if they are. Hence, if I wish to maximize utility, when someone asks, "how do you define 'woman' for purposes of your door-opening policy, I would respond: "Whoever identifies as a woman is a woman. If you you ask someone, 'what gender are you?' and they respond 'I am a woman,' then open the door. It is not recursive because it doesn't matter how they personally define "woman," nor does it matter whether they conform to an objective definition of "woman."
Let's suppose I provided counseling services for unhappy people. And I define an "unhappy person" as anyone who feels he is unhappy. Would you claim that that is endlessly discursive? I doubt it, because all that matters is how they feel, not what the "really" are objectively "unhappy persons," and not whether Joe, if he felt exactly as Fred does, would define himself as an unhappy person, while Fred does not.
Pedantic reply:
Since you have no first-hand knowledge of their unhappiness, you are smuggling into your definition “anyone who communicates he feels he is unhappy”.
Even more pedantic response: As it happens, I have a device that can directly analyze each applicant's brain and can determine whether they indeed are experiencing unhappiness.
You are conflating my ability to accurately determine whether criteria of a definition are satisfied with the the content of the definition. If I have a rule that says "intentional killers must get life in prison," the fact that I cannot know first-hand whether a person actually intended to kill does not mean the category "intentional killers" is illegitimate.
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.
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