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 -
Sorry, my friend, psychopathy has nothing to do with morality, except to moralizers. I'm not making "judgments" either, unless you construe researched findings as "judgments" -- but that would be on you, not me. I'm speaking strictly psychologically, simply, and generically: pathology of the psyche. The fact that a strong (and futile) attempt has been made to isolate "psychopathy" to an extreme end of the scale (it's a spectrum, not an is/isn't) so that the rest of us can feel cozy that "we're not like them" means nothing in the long run. A preemptive right to universally deprive is psychopathic because the framing and the motivations are delusional. Happy to discuss.
You’re using it moralistically. Rights and concepts can’t be literally psychopathic, only people can be psychopaths. It’s a psychopathology characterized by, among many things, the congenital inability to empathize with others. Applying the idea to a legal right is like saying the first amendment has a fever.
So the only way your statement can have meaning is if you’re using the word metaphorically to make a point. The obvious interpretation is that you’re making a moral claim, that the right to deprive is the kind of thing someone without empathy would have come up with, and that’s bad because it’s wrong to lack empathy. You claim here that you mean to say the right is delusional, which is a terrible metaphor because psychopaths do not typically suffer from delusions.
More options
Context Copy link
First of all, the people you call moralisers I call the public, because the commonly understood meaning of psychopathic explicitly refers to the extreme end of the scale, and has for decades. There is also a term which means pathology of the psyche, it is psychopathology. Using psychopathy the way you do ignores decades of clinical, research and academic use. If I said 'hey guys the Sistine chapel is obviously awful right?' and everyone said 'wtf are you on the about dummy?' and I replied 'it fills me with awe, that's awful, doesn't it fill you guys with awe too, are you soulless robots?' would you clap in delight or would you roll your eyes?
If you want to make an argument for using psychopathy to mean the pathology of the psyche over psychopathology I am happy to listen, but I'm going to demand you define every term you use first so I can translate your argument into modern English before I engage.
More options
Context Copy link
Just to be as clear as possible here, is your argument that people who consider property a right are significantly more psychopathic than people who think "sharing" is a general solution to the distribution of rivalrous goods?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link