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 -
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.
There are two broad categories of retort to ethical veganism:
Arguments that the lives of animals are not morally relevant
Arguments that veganism does not let animals live, but denies their existence, and that animals would prefer suffering in a meat farm to non-existence
Retort #1 is addressed in depth and Retort #2 partially in SSC's 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest, which is more worth your time than what I'll write here. Personally, I have a complicated relationship with both these retorts; I feel that if humans are morally relevant, even very stupid ones, then social mammals with limbic systems must be. But livestock can only possibly live in the context of a farm. This realization makes me sad. Consider re-reading the next paragraph once you reach the end of the comment.
Ethical veganism is rooted in a morality of suffering. But isn't the core imperative of an organism not to just not suffer, but to thrive? Regardless of how we structure society, is there any future for livestock animals to thrive? We can stop Bos Taurus from suffering. Create technological replacements — great. In a few decades, Bos Taurus will be all but extinct, with maybe a few thousand left in the country, in hobby farms and zoos. Is that good? Is it good if we create a social welfare program for Bos Taurus, designate nature preserves of green field pasture for 94 million cows to graze? Then we'll need to prevent predators for entering the Bos Taurus nature preserve, create a meaningless environment free of adversity, because breeding pressures have made Bos Taurus ill equipped to handle predation. (Assume it's fine for the predators to be denied existence.) Likewise, we'll need some mechanism to tamp down Bos Taurus birth rate, lest 94 million cows become 376 million cows become 1.5 billion cows. (If I recall, this book has some interesting data on how quickly cattle can reproduce absent natural predators.) Is that good?
For me, it looks like a cow is a creature that cannot thrive on its own. We cannot artificially let it thrive, lest the whole world be overrun. The two other options for cow are: be useful to the superstructure, suffering; or, be a glorified pet of the superstructure, forever.
Now re-read that with "Bos Taurus" for "Homo sapiens", and you'll see why thinking about Retort #2 makes me sad.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link