site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   35202 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 19, 2022

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.

33
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

not a single student was born in 2001 or later (despite the fact that the potential birthdates for this cohort extended up to September 2001)

Okay, I'm very puzzled here. If "senior" means in American terms, in the last year of a four-year degree course, and if generally third level students are 18 when they enter college, then the seniors should be a minimum of 22 years of age.

If he ran the experiment this year, 2022, then 2022-22 = born in 2000. So where is the shock about "nobody was born in September 2001"?

What this really seems to be about is "nobody was super-smart enough to have skipped a year and so be under 22 in their final year", never mind all the discussion we hear about "really bright kids could be finished their degree by 16".

This seems to be saying I should be surprised that in a four year degree course, where students enter at age 18, they will be age 22 this year, so they can't be born later than 2000. I'm not seeing why I should be surprised? But then again, I was too stupid to go to university.

If they're eighteen when they enter (their first year of) college, then when they enter their fourth year of college, they should be twenty-one, as three years elapse from the first year to the fourth, not four.

I have a Spring birthday, so without skipping a grade or doing anything unusual I was 21 throughout most of my senior college year.

Most school districts have a cutoff for kindergarten the first day of school. So if someone just turned five September 1st, they could go to kindergarten the next week (if their school starts in September.)

I'm feeling pretty awesome right now because I did really well in school despite my apparent "disadvantage."

It's about kids being the oldest in their age cohort, and so more developed relative to their peers all throughout school. You're more likely to do well in school, sports, all sorts of things if you were born in the earliest part of your school cohort, and are thus six to eleven months older than half your competition.

The years are important because the birth cohort for seniors would have run from Sept. 2000 to Sept 2001. So mathematically, only a third should have been born in 2000, but 100% were. Somehow all the seniors in this class were from the first three or four months of their school-year birth cohort.

I turned 21 in spring of my senior year of college because I skipped a grade. That wasn’t terribly uncommon in my experience, I met others in a similar situation. Personally it surprised me to read that zero students in the class were a year ahead.

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