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 -
Here's a bit of a tongue-in-cheek take: I am not a vegetarian/vegan because I like animals and want them to continue to exist.
Sounds backwards, of course, but there's a point: as far as I have seen, the main principle underlying most philosophical vegetarianism is not a love of living things, but a hatred of suffering. (Probably this is just because I've been so immersed in stridently-consistent, utilitarian-heavy places like this one, rather than this being how the general public thinks.)
Suppose we all do manage to free ourselves from that nasty red-in-tooth-and-claw circle-of-life business, where we needed animals because we ate animals, like other animals do – what are we going to do next? Doesn't the hatred of suffering demand we continue to do more about how awful animals have it? What will the argument be for letting lions and leopards continue to exist, brutal things they are, once we've lost our humility about also being carnivorous? And once we've extirpated all the predators, what's the argument for letting all the prey animals continue to exist, bundles of suffering blighting the universe that they are? Are we not mandated by all that is good and decent to bring the universe to its most peaceful, purest, coldest, deadest state?
Hm.
Now, I don't really expect this chain of doom to hold. I know there are plenty of arguments about why this slope won't be slipped. But, also as far as I have seen, counting on such arguments holding up at the point of need is risky. That's still not enough for me to think this is a good argument, but I do think it's amusing enough to try posting.
Still, though, I suppose I just prefer not to lose sight of what I am, where I came from, and what I am for. This doesn't mean that I like that some animals have to die to feed me, but I'd like even less for all animals to have to die to feed a moral foundation run out of control. I don't see any grand plans ahead of me that seem likely to make things better instead of worse, in the end, so for now I'll just carry on doing what people have always been doing.
Generally, I feel like when some moral system mandates some radical change from ordinary good-life as it has historically been, it is much more likely that the moral system is broken than that regular existence is. Of course, that risks being one of those heuristics that almost always work (except when they're needed,) so I don't have any good, conclusive answers.
More options
Context Copy link