site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 5, 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.

105
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Not sure if this is better for SQS but - What is the steelman argument against vegetarianism/veganism? I am especially interested in claims that aren't health-based, as I know quite a few very intelligent and well-sourced vegans who have thoroughly convinced me that most health based claims are false.

I'm not a vegetarian myself but I'm reasonably convinced that I should be one, it's more of a moral failing on my part that I eat meat, not a logical stance.

What is the steelman argument against vegetarianism/veganism?

I like meat.

I'm not a vegan myself but I don't think citing the hedonistic aspect of a morally questionable act as justification would fly anywhere else, why let it settle the argument here?

I think it's a lot like the question of "Why don't you donate 10% of your income to charity?"

"Oh, because I want to spend the money on other things."

"I don't feel that's a reasonable answer that discharges you of your moral obligations."

"Okay, but I'm still not doing it."

I think in that case it's more a matter of moral motivation than moral clarity. Disputing what is good vs knowing the good but failing to act on it.

Christians don't kid themselves here and readily admit that they are flawed relative to what God demands of them, the rest of us might at least take the lesson that the path to the good life may not ever intersect the path of least resistance.

Human utility is far more important to me and most people than animal utility is. It's also not like all farmed animals have terrible lives. Factory-farmed chickens essentially live in concentration camps and from what I've read pigs are in somewhat rough conditions, but cows seem pretty content. If you're that horrendously worried about the lifestyles of the animals you eat, then you should buy ethically farmed meat which has animals that almost certainly have net-positive utility across their lifetimes. Ethical considerations have never been a good reason to be vegetarian, they're just a reason to farm differently, if you care about the animals that much.

People don't bother to cite the hedonic aspects of the act when talking about nonprocreative sex, but it settles the argument nonetheless.

It flies everywhere else, though. Things are good because a critical mass of people assert they are good.

I don't think it would be an absurdity to assert that the mass of people may be wrong.

Sure, you can insist your personal moral vision is superior to the masses. I do that, too. But once you do that you're just debating personal aesthetics. This is good because I say it's good (or because God says it and I say God is good, etc).

Either way, it all boils down to a critical mass of people asserting it.

I don't think that personal aesthetics become morals just through multiplication. Whether it's one person or many, you need more than a head count to substantiate a moral claim.

The opinions of the majority of people change over time. Would you argue that the truth of what is and isn’t good changes over time too?

For example a majority of people in the Americas would have said slavery is good, or at least morally permissible, a few centuries ago. Does that imply that slavery actually was good at that time?

Certainly not evidenced by slave ownership. Only a minority ever owned slaves.