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 -
What if our fundamentals are exactly backwards?
New to The Motte, looking for constructive, critical discussion.
Here's an example of what I mean by a "fundamental":
Every economic system that has seemed credible to most people since the dawn of civilization has revolved around the legal establishment and safeguarding of property through the concept of ownership.
But what is ownership? I have my own ideas, but I asked ChatGPT and was surprised that it pretty much hit the nail on the head: the definitional characteristic of ownership is the legal right to deprive others.
This has been such a consistently universal view that very few people question it. Even fewer have thought through a cogent alternative. Most people go slack-jawed at the suggestion that an alternative is possible.
Here's something from years back, before I'd zeroed in on the perverse nature of ownership:
Anyone want to brainstorm a viable alternative to "ownership"?
/images/17459352527399495.webp
Only if you've stopped stealing from other people.
If ownership is deprivation of others, then that deprivation is theft. After all, to deprive is to deny someone the possession or use of something. If this is supposed to be an immoral characteristic ('paranoid,' 'not sharing,' 'psychopathy), then the moral state is for it to not be deprived. The immoral deprivation of personal or even public goods is understood to be theft.
However, you are posting here. On the internet. A medium that requires a computer of some sort that could be not-deprived to someone else. Moreover, you repeatedly responded to others. This entails further use of time depriving the device to others. It also implies a surplus of time, and thus material resources you are depriving others of, that enable the hobby rather than sharing like a non-paranoid should. These resources are deprived from benefiting other possible beneficiaries and potential users by virtue (or sin) of your use. Your use and expected ability to use is demonstrating a de facto, even if not de jure, ownership.
It's generally understood that it is fair to judge people by their own standards, even if it's not fair to do so by your own. So be it. A priest who declares any who disagrees with their message is damned to hell will be a damned priest by their own hypocrisies. A revolutionary who declares it an act of cowardliness to not participate in a protest is a coward for not participating. You are someone who deprives others by exercising ownership and mutually exclusive use of limited resources.
Why should anyone brainstorm alternative ownership with a thief in the middle of a robbery?
LOL, Strawman City here, looks like -- and in Strawman City, everything you say is true by definition. Great! The only problem is that nothing that happens in Strawman City affects anyone but you, cuz you're the only one there. Sorry, just too many baseless assumptions and leaps of illogic for me to engage much. No, physical possession is not theft. No, physical possession does not entail deprivation. No, "paranoid", "not sharing", and "psychopathy" have zip-all to do with morality. No, I'm not engaging in a hobby. Before trying to construct a polemical trap, make sure you've got facts to work with. But speaking of ironies and hypocrisies, what about the fact that you know squat about me but pretend to know?
I'd generally agree that these aren't moral concepts. Given that they are neither moral nor immoral, and that this system of "psychopathy with a makeover" that makes sense to "paranoid" people "who don't understand the concept of sharing" keeps leading to stable societies with people leading prosperous lives, when instability and poverty has been the norm for most lives anywhere, I have to conclude that "psychopathy" and "paranoia" and "not sharing" are really cool things that I want more of, for the purpose of my own benefit from living in a stable and prosperous society and from the good feelings I get from believing that I support a system that benefit more people in general. Why would I want to come up with an alternative?
So you're implying that these stable societies (stable for whom, exactly -- the precariat? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat) aren't comprised of a majority of people who experience incessant instability and poverty? Or do you simply not consider people stuck in poverty to be people?
More than what? The USA benefits more people on average than which countries? Compared to which periods in history?
Trick questions, actually, because there's a fundamental flaw in your argument no matter how you'd answer them: better-than-worse does not substitute for as-good-as-better. Those are two mutually exclusive orientations. Yours is the former. No matter how much better than others an example might be, it says nothing about how good it realistically could be. When brought up as a barrier to improvement, better-than-worse is perverse. Confucius points this out in terms of intelligence: If you're always the smartest person in the room, you keep choosing the wrong room.
And that doesn't even touch on a much more important aspect which most people are functionally oblivious to. I'll pose it with a question: given all you know about this world, compared to what you'd really like the world to be, is this one the world you want?
Most people have become so tacitly cynical, it simply doesn't occur to them that what they want even matters anymore.
Yes, that is clearly the case. I’m not sure how you could think otherwise, the vast majority of people on planet Earth are not living in poverty. That’s even more so the case for developed countries. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Wait, what? Then how are you defining the word "deprivation"? Surely, if I am using an object, I am not allowing others to use the object at the same time, i.e. I am depriving them of the ability to use the object.
You need to think it through more carefully. I have a nice little USB-powered fan that I use in the afternoons here in central Mexico. Am I depriving you of that fan? Do you right here and now consider yourself deprived? If you have something I don't want, have you deprived me by making clear you won't let me near it?
There are 3 very different things at play here: 1) actual deprivation; 2) potential deprivation; and 3) the actual right to deprive potentially everyone else in the world of your property. Conflate them at your peril, lol.
I've been talking exclusively about #3, and only #3.
Actual deprivation requires things: 1) a deprivable; 2) a desire to possess on the part of a non-owner; 3) the owners exercise of their deprivation right.
Not all a person owns is a deprivable. A desirable you own can only be deprivable if you have the wherewithal to actually deprive others of it. Otherwise, ownership is legal right that you're incapable of exercising, so it's practically impotent. Companies trying to enforce copyrights against fair use know exactly what I'm talking about.
Merely having the legal right to deprive doesn't actually deprive anyone. An owner has that right, but might offer their property for free public use. Lots of restaurants have created menu items specifically to offer to people who have no means to pay.
Rights are, by nature and definition, purely retroactive. They have no prevention potential. Unless you actively prevent or resist interlopers, your ownership/right to deprive does diddly to keep your property safe. The only meaningful effect your right has on anyone is on people who respect your right -- which, guess what, means they're not the ones you need to prevent/protect against. Rights are 100% justificatory. Their only practical use is to justify actions that an owners takes in protection of property. The actions taken are the only preventative. (Where's a cop when you need one, lol?)
Hopefully that helps.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Thank you for your illustrative response. It provides the audience more to know you by.
This response is a useful demonstration of how you respond when the moral implications of your claimed standards reflect poorly on yourself. Rather than clarify or refine an argument, you invoke the fallacy of fallacies to try and dismiss implicit criticism as irrelevant. Rather than engage any particular part, you dismiss all elements of pushback. This is a useful way to tease out someone's inclination for using arguments as soldiers, as opposed to genuine positions worth holding and defending despite implicit disrepute.
It is also enlightening to consider not only your use of highly pejorative language, but then your denial that there are any moral connotations with your choice of words. This is not only an excellent example of a particularly blatant motte-and-bailey. It is also enlightening for the speed you withdrew from the bailey, and on what strength of argument you gave to its defense.
It is very useful to know when someone is both the sort of person to deny their words have commonly understood connotations, but also opens with them while inviting others to come up with new definitions of old concepts.
You have also provided additional insights into your mindset and character. Assuming you are honest and that posting here is not a hobby, then posting here is indicative of some kind of cause or other less-trivial, more serious purpose. This supports a bias towards motivated reasoning and engagement. Your counter-argument by counter-attack to an ad-hominem, rather than over your position, suggests a motive focused on the inter-personal engagement than on advancing an ideological premise. This is consistent with your response to other people, suggesting a combative personality. Combined with the [serious purpose] position, this provides insight into potential motives, and your conduct in pursuit of [serious purposes].
Of course, if you are lying, the above could all be wrong. But lying, or even an inclination to loose and fast exaggerations, is another useful thing to know about a new poster.
He’s trying to sharpen his arguments for his book, I think.
Close. I'm trying to sharpen my thinking, period -- book or not, discussions or not. The only quest I'm on and the only agenda I have is to understand -- especially the issues that have accosted my sons and are going to accost my grandchildren. They're inheriting a world that was fucked up both before and during our watch. Understanding what's really going on is prerequisite to doing something about it. And I'm doing everything I can.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
PS. Just in case, it occurred to me that you might wonder, if it's the case that, "if all someone is interested in doing is dismissing my ideas or me as the ideator, then their 'evidence' and reasons and justifications don't amount to much for me," why I'd take the kind of time with your comment that I did. Simple. I don't admire what you were trying to accomplish with it, but I really admire the way you tried to do it. I've never seen that kind cleverness and creativity invested in an ad hom before. Honestly, it's quite the piece of work. You've got talent. So, it fascinated me. Taking that kind of time and care with it is just my way of showing my admiration. Sincerely. 😊
More options
Context Copy link
lol, and now it's all about me? Why is it all about me? Because it's all about ego in the minds of people who get derailed by my "moral implications", "pejorative language", etc., and jettison the subject to focus on personal issues which, your comment being a good example, are projected onto me without the slightest intention of validating them with me.
Everything you said from, "This response is a useful demonstration of how you respond..." to "... while inviting others to come up with new definitions of old concepts," is inaccurate and misrepresentative -- as well as constituting a strawman you're not using to poke holes in what I said but derail focus from the topic onto my person and character. Blatant ad hom.
In contrast to your approach here -- characterize a person you've never met in vague, hypothetical terms instead of addressing the specifics you only allude to -- I'm happy to take criticism on specifics. And I will, of course, criticize the criticism where it falls short and misses the mark. But there has been very little of that here in the comments. Most of them have boiled down to reciting status quo dogmas (which I've explained for what they are), straw-manning (which I've addressed specifically), and illogical, fallacious claims about what I supposedly said but never said (which I've addressed specifically).
I'll give you mega points for slick presentation, though.
It's on you to present examples of what you're alleging so that we can talk about them. I don't see any evidence that you're interested in that so far, which is why I think you've chosen a broad, unspecific brush to paint/characterize me in an unfavorable light. But I invite you to get real.
I'd like to ask, specifically: do you think all "pejorative language" is illicit? Did you pay any attention to what my "pejorative language" was directed at? If so, did I direct it towards people or towards vile ideas, baseless and antagonistic claims, and general bullshittery? Please quote where I put someone down or impugned them personally. Or is it, in your mind, that if a person calls your idea stupid or silly or bullshit, they have called you stupid or silly or bullshit? Just wondering if that any of this has even occurred to you, because I've met oodles and oodles of people who simply cannot distinguish the two. They never like me very much. I take it as a compliment.
Would you allow me to infer your mindset and character from your comment? I could. I don't want to. I'd rather just ask, like I've been doing here.
False. Mere seriousness does not imply bias or motivated reasoning in the sense you seem to mean. Just so that you know, I am anti-ideological. I'm not motivated by an ideology. I'm motivated by wanting to understand what's really going on and love for what I'll find out, because I'm convinced after 70 years of life that nothing which isn't lovable actually exists.
This is really quite good. You've done some good thinking as far as assembling an argument. Sadly, you've premised your psychoanalysis on ignorance, imagination, and surmise without having done the least little thing to ascertain facts.
Bottom line -- aside from facticity, accuracy, representativeness and the rest, there are two very basic and easily seen movements that people make when presented with a topic: either they move towards engagement or they move away from it towards dismissal. It's got nothing to do with whether we agree or disagree. In one way, it really doesn't matter what a person says, ultimately, if their sole intention is to successfully dismiss a topic. Ad hom and pretended psychoanalysis are just two of the more repugnant ways to justify dismissing what a person has said and/or dismissing them. Personally, if all someone is interested in doing is dismissing my ideas or me as the ideator, then their "evidence" and reasons and justifications don't amount to much for me. I know what I've done, I know how I got here, I know what I've got, I know how I've tested it and how it's fared. You literally know none of that except what I might have mentioned here (or elsewhere, if you went looking). So, little-to-none is as much merit as your opinions here warrant, being totally or practically factually baseless. But I'm not dismissing you (just in case you were poised to leap there.) I'm totally down to engage on specifics. Let's discuss.
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