site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32879 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 10, 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.

23
Top Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Have you read Scott's Who By Very Slow Decay? When your remaining lifespan is expected negative value, suicide is sane.

The notion that some kid with PTSD is in the same boat as a decaying immobile nonagenarian amputee is beyond absurd. I'm entirely supportive of assisted suicide for the terminally ill and those with untreatable severe chronic pain, but this ain't it.

The notion that some kid with PTSD is in the same boat as a decaying immobile nonagenarian amputee is beyond absurd.

There are people who assert that suicide is always wrong. I think this argument is "haggling over the price."

I remember when liberals accused George W. Bush of haggling over the price because he favored the death penalty but not abortion. Of course you'll probably consider that a principled distinction, but price-haggling always feels principled when it's our team, doesn't it?

No I don't, there's nothing wrong with price-haggling. You'll just use different arguments for it.

I think the kid with PTSD and the decaying immobile nonagenarian amputee are comparable. You think they're qualitatively different. Fine, make your case, or at least describe it with more detail than "beyond absurd". At least specify some sort of metric.You can't just construct reference classes by appeal to absurdity.

Some people think that eating meat is always wrong. If you think it's okay to eat pork but not to eat human flesh, are you "haggling over the price"? I'm not sure what purpose your comment serves.

If you think it's okay to eat pork but not to eat human flesh, are you "haggling over the price"?

Yes. Sapience is a continuum.

I'm not saying haggling-over-price is bad! Prices matter! To me it's more a difference between, to use programmer terms, a comparison that's returning false and a function overload that doesn't match types.

I don’t even understand what argument you are making and neither do your interlocutors seem to. What is the point of the haggling over the price comment if it has (apparently) no bearing on anything?

I think "is beyond absurd" works better as a principle argument than as a price argument. Generally, asserting "X and Y cannot be compared" to me is saying "I want to argue principles, not price."

Ok, you win. Suicide should be forbidden under all circumstances, because otherwise people will use any exception you grant, to argue for allowing young adults and teenagers to kill themselves.

Then I'll just argue that suicide should not be forbidden. You can't stop me, mwahaha.

I'm not saying a line cannot be drawn, I'm saying there's two different arguments here. And for that matter, this argument still implies the line - presumably you would not say something like "people wil use any exception to argue for allowing decrepit Alzheimers patients to kill themselves." So your line is still there; you cannot construct a principled argument by saying "otherwise, the unprincipled line would be violated."

Then I'll just argue that suicide should not be forbidden. You can't stop me, mwahaha.

Please do. It would a lot more honest conversation than assuring people this totally isn't a slippery slope, and that the exception should be allowed out of compassion.

I'm not saying a line cannot be drawn

"Haggling over the price" implies that the principle is invalid. I reject that view

So your line is already implied

No, it just implies one case is worse than the other, but both are over the line.

"Haggling over the price" implies that the principle is invalid.

It implies that the principle is not in play. I think both lines and principles are valid, but cannot be argued with the same rhetoric tools.

It implies that the principle is not in play.

Distinction without a difference. The fact that someone is willing to compromise with you, doesn't mean their principles are not in play, and arguing so just discourages people from ever compromising with you.

I sort of agree, but this is mostly because we don't draw a clean mental distinction between principles and prices. It's the same function, differently parameterized, I guess.

Not sure how to handle that rhetorically though.

Which just goes to show that all slopes are slippery, the center cannot hold, etc, etc.

Barbers can cut your hair but we don't let them chop off your limbs, it's legal to eat pork but not legal to eat human flesh, etc. Not all slopes are slippery.

Give it a few years...

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