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 -
Second reply for different topic:
What do you know (and how do you know it) that would stop you here?
Putting on my atheist hat, what I see is something like this:
Being is. Something exists, rather than nothing. The nature of Being is structured such that conscious life arises and starts thirsting for a relationship with a Creator beyond the bounds of the universe. Probability is a silly thing to bring into this matter imo; this is simply what is.
Meanwhile there's plentiful reason to suppose the simulation hypothesis, our status as Boltzmann Brains, etc. or at least to collapse into methodological solipsism. What doesn't make sense is to assume that the external world we perceive is as we perceive it, or that our faculties allow us to satisfactorily observe and evaluate its nature or scope.
Our existence is fundamentally incomprehensible. Within this scenario we either don't have free will (in which case, whatever, we're just going to do what we're going to do and the consequences if any will find us) or we do in which case we're left with the question of what is worth doing.
The two options would seem to be 1) temporal hedonism or 2) reference to an external source of value, e.g. a Creator who provides a possibility for ultimate consequence to exist and for some choices and outcomes to be objectively better than others.
Given 1) I would agree with Camus that suicide is the only interesting question.
Given 2) I find that all kinds of amazing possibilities open up and suddenly life is full of wonderful (and terrible) potential.
This choice is an individual one, but I've never quite comprehended those who choose 1).
From Aurelius' Meditations.
This is the kind of thing you hear when someone's peddling something that they know will never be made distinguishable from non-reality by any demonstrable method whatsoever. Maybe it sounds good to believers eager to quit getting kicked around by observations of reality, but you could use lines like this to argue for literally anything
Yes, literally all belief is faith-based and we should be very careful about where to place that faith.
All maps are wrong; some maps are true. If it's blurry but gets you where you're going it's better than technically-accurate but leaves you stranded.
Anyone who would complain about this state of affairs had better take it up with Reality.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Who said that the unity, order, design of (ii) are going to be favorable to you?
Hence the 'terrible' and the 'faith' in my post.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link