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 -
I'm following this conversation from the sidelines, and you're sure not making it easy to understand what you're actually saying, or what's it you're interested in debating, beyond generic sneering.
What are you confused about? This is a standard question of regulation, and the standard objections are that regulation can harm innovation and present barriers to entry. I have welcomed any detailed discussion of these features, but have objected to hyperbolic versions of them, that any epsilon amount of regulation instantly kills innovation to zero, for example. Some folks have quadrupled down on this hyperbolic claim, and are now claiming that I am making a hyperbolic reverse claim - that regulation cannot possibly impact innovation in any way. This is a bullshit strawman.
That is the broad context of the discussion. I also observed some of the features of the culture war. I'm not sure what you're confused about.
Your specific position. You've come in sneering at your perceived opponents, and when they respond you object that they got your position wrong. For example:
No they haven't. Why do others have to get your position 100% right, while you're allowed to caricature theirs freely?
Let's look at the tape.
The former person has at least walked it back to, "The debate is only on the magnitude of the effect.", and we have proceeded to have a more fruitful conversation since then. The latter obstinately refuses to make any more specific claims other than that the only thing you can do is to make it so that the industry "can't produce the new stuff any more". If they would like to walk this back from being in the land of hyperbole and into the land of reasoned argumentation, we'll be making some progress.
I'm confused, when you give link like this, aren't they supposed to prove your point, rather than disprove it? I don't see any claims of instantenous absolute killing of innovation. I could understand if you're being figurative here, but since you insist that your opponents get your position absolutely right when responding, I don't understand why you think it's fair for you to portray their claims in such a way.
And so do you. Normally when someone tries to have this sort of conversation in a productive manner, they tend to put forward some kind of framework for analyzing specific situations, so others can run it through various scenarios. I take you are in favor of some regulation, but not too much. How much is too much? Can we know in advance? Is there something we can do to prevent it from going too far? What can be done if it does? If you bothered answering any if these questions in advance, rather than strawmanning your opponents, and then complaining about being strawmanned, the conversation would be a lot more productive, probably.
We're having a nice conversation here about the regulation in question. That is a good way of having a discussion about having non-zero regulation, but hopefully not too much of it. One can argue that some of the specifics are, in fact, too much of it, but that's what that conversation looks like... not the mess the other guys are doing.
One could even go after a "framework for analyzing", even in slippery slope situations. Here's a good example of how to construct such a framework, and I think rich conversations could be had. In fact, it could even be beneficial to have a top-level comment that branches off from Volokh's work to have a nice robust discussion on how to construct an appropriate framework.
But they're still refusing to have any sort of framework, discuss any sort of specifics, nothing. Just that they have declared that the slope is slippery, and nothing more need (or can) be said. That is it. That once we have passed epsilon, we are on the slope, one cannot discuss frameworks anymore, and doom is upon us. This is not a strawman. This is a repeatedly stated position, stated openly, and resistant to any attempt to bring the discussion back to the type of thing that you would like.
As interesting as that conversation is, I don't see how it's relevant to my arguments.
And they're 100% correct to do so. Again, you opened with sneers, no framework of your own, and only vague hints at your own position. Much like you misrepresented your opponents views, while demanding they get yours exactly right, you seem to be demanding a higher standard then you're setting for yourself. I don't think it's a "mess the other guys are doing", you are a significant part of it.
I started by opening the conversation to a variety of perspectives on the issue at hand and an observation on the culture war component of it. I did not claim to endeavor to present a complete framework, nor has anyone even asked me to. When folks have wanted to have interesting discussions on particulars, I've engaged, and it's been fruitful. Full of details. Plenty of information about my position. I haven't even asked for a full and complete framework from anyone; even just a little attempt at talking about types of slippery slopes and such would be fine, but what I've gotten in return is literally on the level of, "Gay marriage, slippery slope, dog marriage, QED." Thinking that we can mayyyyybe do a tiny bit better than that in thinking about a framework for understanding slippery slopes is not a demand for a complete and total theory. It's a request to even try.
I never once misrepresented my opponents' views. They still explicitly claim that I represented them appropriately. Nor have I once demanded that they get mine exactly right. It is entirely a mess that they have created. Perhaps they viewed my observation of the culture war component as a sneer, got personally offended, and lost all capacity for rational argumentation, and I could be partially blamed for that. In that case, I would suggest that you focus on what part of my observation of the culture war component was wrong, for just because it was interpreted as a sneer and caused offense does not mean that was not true and necessary.
You have opened with sneers, the relevant fragments were already quoted to you. I never said you should put forward a complete framework. Much like you are demanding of others and are refusing to give yourself, I said you should start with anything anyone can bite into. You have baited people into a low-quality pissing contest, and are acting upset that they took the bait.
Again: where is the part where they say they death of innovation is instantaneous and absolute? If you can't show that part, you have misrepresented their view precisely to the amount you are claiming they have misrepresented yours.
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