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 -
Given the significant interest around the 2020 stolen election claims (definitely my favorite hobby horse topic), and the serious accusations that I have been weakmanning the overall category of election fraud claims, I would like to extend an open invitation to anyone interested in exposing the errors of my ways to a real-time discussion for a Bailey episode.
Here are the conditions I would suggest:
Are any of the above unreasonable or unfair? Do you have any suggested additions/changes?
I've been trying to set a conversation like this for years but haven't found any takers. @Dean, @jfk, @motteposting are the ones I know are sufficiently motivated and informed about the topic, and whom I'd most look forward to dissecting this topic with. Feel free to nominate anyone else you think would be good.
I think you are trying to be fair, but agree with the people pointing out that going up against a lawyer and experienced podcaster is not a fair fight if you don't have experience in that kind of venue. I mean, I am pretty convinced that the theory of evolution is true and young earth creationism is not, and I think I understand the science well enough to argue that from an educated position, but I am neither a public debater nor a scientist, and if I debated a professional young earth creationist who runs a podcast "debunking" evolution, I expect I'd be made to look like a fool.
I don't believe I gained any super powers from being a lawyer, and I reached my positions with access to the exact same resources that anyone else has. But whatever advantages I may have I would assume are mitigated by sharing resources ahead of time and the 1v3 format. I'm open to other suggestions. I also think it's perfectly ok/commendable for people to admit they're incapable of defending their beliefs, but keep in mind that the three I tagged have made confident assertions about my dishonesty and bad faith on this particular topic. Unless someone is making a baseless accusation, I have to assume it's based on some evidence and that they would be eager for an opportunity to establish the validity of their beliefs.
It's not a super power but your setting the domain rules to favor other trained lawyers over people less familiar with legal procedures.
How do the rules favor other trained lawyers, and what changes would you suggest?
It's not a thing you can change by just modifying a few conditions. The only meaningful way to get rid of the advantage of being a trained lawyer is to find an opponent who's also a trained lawyer or equivalent.
This incessant insistence on "if you REALLY were serious, you'd do it at a time and place and under circumstances of my choosing" is as annoying as rationalists insisting "if you REALLY were serious, you'd bet money".
The objection was on the rules themselves, not just that I'm a trained lawyer. I'm trying to separate the earnest objections versus the pretextual excuses from those unwilling to have their beliefs scrutinized. If someone objects to the rules but then offers no alternatives, I have nothing to go off.
Nobody can possibly give an exhaustive list of all the ways in which the rules can advantage a trained lawyer. Asking for them to give a list of rule objections just leads to a situation where they left one out or didn't phrase their objection properly, and you go "Ha ha, well now you admitted in advance the rules are okay, so I can do anything I want that you didn't mention, and you have no reason to complain".
It's just like the situation with rationalist bets, except instead of "you're probably not going to phrase the bet in a way free of loopholes" it's "you're probably not going to phrase your objection to the rules in a way free of loopholes".
I never asked for an exhaustive list, I just want some specifics on why the rules are unfair rather than just proclaiming they're unfair for unspecified reasons. Someone who knows their beliefs will crumble when it encounters a stiff breeze of scrutiny has an incentive to make up whatever excuse to keep them safeguarded, so I need some method to discern who has earnest objections and who's just making shit up.
More options
Context Copy link
Right. It's like dealing with the Devil. You may not know how you're going to get screwed over. You may be able to look the contract over carefully and not see a catch. But you can be sure there is one and you're going to Hell without getting the full benefit apparently promised, because the Devil's that much better at this game than you are.
More options
Context Copy link
Being a lawyer is not magic.
Nobody here is going to be impressed if @ymeskhout tries to win on a technicality instead of the substance of the issue. Moreover, if he did act in some kind of unreasonable procedural way, it’s going to decrease anyone ever being willing to go on the podcast, which is against his demonstrated preferences.
But you can try to lay the grounds for the excuse that anyone debating an issue with him and doing poorly is because of legal superpowers and not on the merits.
Or you can propose a different format. Or find a lawyer who holds the relevant beliefs I guess.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think you’re way overestimating how much it matters that @ymeskhout is a lawyer relative to him simply being very sharp and, it seems, having the facts on his side.
Skill issue.
It's a trust issue. People are familiar with the conduct of lawyers with an axe to grind, and simply know better than to voluntarily place themselves in front of that buzzsaw.
More options
Context Copy link
I said "trained lawyer or equivalent". "Or equivalent" includes being a trained debater who doesn't actually practice law.
This is also a good example of not being able to phrase the objection to cover all the loopholes in advance. I thought I covered being sharp and having skills, but it seems you think the way I phrased it didn't.
It's essentially the rationalist bet scenario.
I think you’re overly worried about loopholes and training instead of whether someone who has good evidence has a fair shot in a discussion, not a court of law or formal competition.
You’re actually demonstrating a talent for nitpicking much as a lawyer or policy analyst might. Raw talent can go a long way.
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