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 -
It’s a good point, although you’re attributing opinions to me that I don’t hold. I was never in favour of mandatory vaccination, at least not for the new Covid vaccines. There’s a spectrum of action roughly along the lines of:
Realistically a lot of old people are pretty out of touch (I had a family member of the appropriate age at the time) and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having a doctor come and say, “I would like to give you this vaccine, are you okay with that.” Which is probably what I would have done in this case.
Sure, you can do some encouraging for like old people and such. Whatever. But why not make it available to people who might have a reason to take it, but who aren't in your narrow category of people you know have reason to take it (i.e., old people)? Let them know the risks/uncertainties. They know their own circumstances.
Limited supply and risk of side effects, since part of the scenario is that we’re rolling this out with minimal testing.
Concerning risk of side effects, I still don't think you've answered the question. A variety of people may have different reasons to be tolerant of the risk of side effects. Some might be old, at higher risk, have fewer years to live. Others might have some other condition that bends their personal risk curve in favor of taking it. Others, like I mentioned, may have incredible amounts of their livelihood at stake. And there are other situations that we can't even think of. Why not just let them know the risks/uncertainties, trust that they know their own circumstances, and not make their decision for them?
Concerning limited supply, that's generally what the price mechanism is good at. Rather than having category upon category decreed by the government, when such politicized categories scarcely have anything to do with value, just let people buy it. Sure, you could buy some for some specific category where you know there is a need (like poor old people), but then just let people buy the rest of it. The price will help distribute it to people who have the most reason to get it (e.g., someone whose livelihood depends on it is likely to pay a higher price than someone who can work from home and is just a little inconvenienced by lockdowns). If the price starts out kind of high from limited supply, it also encourages people to pay significant attention to the risks involved, because if they're going to spend that money, they want to be pretty confident they know what they're getting for their money.
I would conclude from your points, limited supply and risk of side effects, that we should mostly just let people buy it, choosing on their own, from their own circumstances. Why do you think those points cut in the other direction? Why do you think they make it more likely that you're going to make a better decision for other people than they would make for themselves?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link