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 -
People like this generally do, although they rarely ever say what they mean in non-euphemistic terms.
Which makes sense. If you have the option, reducing population via less population is going to make less suffering than going around violently murdering them. It's still a form of genocide, but from the perspective of someone whose utility function literally only counts negative values it would be the one to choose.
But in terms of feasibility in the real world, unless you can manage to genetically engineer some virus that can seek out and neuter all life forms of all kinds, murderous genocide is likely to be much more feasible. An "effective negative utilitarian" should probably be trying to manipulate governments into starting WW3 in order to create a nuclear winter that blocks off the sun and "prevent food energy from being created" globally. Even if the war and starvation create more suffering in the short term, preventing new life would massively outweigh that in the long term. Kind of a... reverse repugnant conclusion.
I don't think most negative utilitarians would explicitly endorse this (though most traditional utilitarians don't endorse the regular repugnant conclusion), but given that they DO want to depopulate via non-violent means, I think it's mostly due to hyperbolic discounting.
More options
Context Copy link