site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32882 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.

"X should be cooler than this" is a summary of Kulak's philosophy right?

I can recall reading "War should be cooler than this," "Cops should be cooler than this," fifteen or so "Healthcare should be cooler than this," "Jobs should be cooler than this," etc.

It's an aesthetic approach to right and wrong.

All approaches to right and wrong are aesthetic.

Deontology is concerned with optimizing the good.

Utilitarianism is concerned with optimizing the pleasurable.

Virtue ethics is concerned with optimizing the beautiful.

.

Deontologists might look at me as evil, Utilitarians might look at me as cruel... but the disgust I feel when looking on their works and what they'd make of themselves, it is a righteous fury on par with any of their calls for crusade or the overturn of "oppressors"

I have to confess, a general philosophy of 'If the world is not fair and just, we can at least make it beautiful' is one that has a good amount of appeal.

Sure, but what is beautiful? And who gets to decide?

A small example, I love cars. I find joy in driving fun aesthetically pleasing cars, I love seeing them around, I'd love it if more people chose to drive aesthetically pleasing cars rather than generic fish-shaped crossovers. But I'd never want the government to act to make more people drive pretty cars and fewer people drive ugly ones, because their definition of ugly and mine might not agree. I might find my beautiful (in my perception) classic banned, and the roads full of hideous monstrosities. I want freedom of aesthetic, not a requirement of some government's idea of aesthetics.

Inasmuch as that philosophy results in libertarian outcomes (We should all be free to make our lives beautiful) it is great, inasmuch as it results in authoritarian outcomes (The government should restrict people from making choices that I find unaesthetic) it is horrible. Inasmuch as Kulak is saying "Hey if you're gonna kill yourself, jump in a volcano or something" cool beans; inasmuch as he is saying "The government should not offer the option of assisted suicide because that's for pussies" I find it both wrong and incoherent. Wrong because it's not for me to tell someone else how to make their most personal decision, incoherent because if we posit that such a person is useless because they would make this choice then it's in our interest to let them make that choice.

While not directly relevant, there’s a very short story about classic cars and government regulations that I enjoyed called “A Nice Morning

Drive”

http://www.2112.net/powerwindows/transcripts/19731100roadandtrack.htm

Love it.

What about the government stopping in pushes that strongly incentivize fish shaped crossovers with fleet fuel efficiency standards and pedestrian safety laws?

Oh I'm full of ideas for how to intervene or stop intervening in the car market. Fleet fuel economy standards are a nightmare. Safety standards are fascism, we should be able to sell cheap tricycles or a modern MGB to consenting adults. I also think additional licensing should be required for any vehicle with more than 200 and again at 300 horsepower, regardless of size.

Speed limits should be eliminated. People convicted of reckless driving offenses should have mandatory mechanical devices installed on their axles that create violent noise and vibration above 65mph.

A modern MGB, you get my vote! My first car was a Sprite.

I want to be your friend.

Safety standards are fascism, we should be able to sell cheap tricycles or a modern MGB to consenting adults.

I also think additional licensing should be required for any vehicle with more than 300 horsepower, regardless of size.

These statements seem to fall on opposite sides of the debate.

Not really. Both are in favor of smaller, lighter cars which burn less gas not by virtue of complicated technical tricks but by being small cars with small engines.

If the general class of driver's license only covers up to 200 horsepower, that will stop a lot of soccer mom's from driving Expeditions they can't park properly. You can drive a full size pickup with 180 horsepower, but slowly, most people won't choose to do it. So the only people driving big cars will be those who need them or really love them, eliminating most users who can't drive them well.

Enthusiasts buying sports cars would happily take an extra month of classes and a harder test, hell throw in a track handling test.

Take out big cars and sports cars, and no one needs more than 200 horsepower anyway, and with smaller engines they'll get better gas mileage. 200hp in an Avalon or an Explorer can handle just fine on the highway, just a little slower.

Oh, you just want smaller cars by any means necessary, even if those means are government-enforced. I thought your "safety standards are fascism" remark was meant to indicate anti-government sentiment.

If we're going to have government regulations, and we are, I just want them to be actually helpful and not actively harmful. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Whoever's aesthetic values converge most serendipitously with the maintenance of superior firepower, one imagines.

I have to confess, a general philosophy of 'If the world is not fair and just, we can at least make it beautiful' is one that has a good amount of appeal.

This is one of the appeals of "retvrn" neo-feudalist and neo-reactionary thought.

"If we have to lick the boot for our whole life, why not make it beautiful golden, bejeweled and embroidered nobleman's boot instead of ugly black capitalist's or comissar's one?"

It’s a fig leaf, perhaps.

The most fervent reactionaries are those who argue that it is materially/spiritually superior (ex. Moldbug), or that they will be on the top, (dictators, fundamentalists, race warriors...).

You can't justify morality by appealing to morality, so what basis is left beyond aesthetics?

Indeed...It is impossible to get from an is to an ought statement (per Hume). Thus both moral realism / moral relativism / even most forms of moral nihilism are vastly too claims intensive to be correct. Morality as it relates to reality is something we cannot even access at its most basic level...

So everyone is inevitably caving to aesthetics or social pressure when choosing their morality... so what should one do? I'd argue the noblest thing one can do from this position is to at least consciously choose to pick something that's truly beautiful.

But beauty and nobility are the exact same.

You can't get an "X is noble" from "is" statements either. Ditto for beauty except insofar as you think beauty is a social construct and you are optimizing for what is generally considered beautiful by the bulk of people. But, then, I too can choose my morality based on what other people say is moral.

This is to say, all your arguments against conventional morality apply exactly equally as well to your own values of nobility and beauty.

Honestly, none. It's aesthetics all the way down.

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