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 -
There should be no surprise about why people would think you're a "bad person" then. Explicit lack of caring about others is kind of what makes one a "bad person".
I am also not okay with the status quo either, but I think there is some minimum level of support that must be provided (or possible to achieve) before you violate people's autonomy willy-nilly.
(my preferred solution is low-quality, cheap housing, that doesn't have to be right in the most expensive locations for some freaking reason. If you make that available that justifies a lot more force when removing people from public, as they actually have somewhere to go.)
But it’s not ‘ others ‘ - it’s pieces of shit.
He doesn’t hate his gay or black or Jewish or Polish or Haitian neighbor, nor presumably any of these, or other, peoples.
He doesn’t care about the pieces of shit.
That doesn’t make him a bad person, it actually makes you a bad person for judging him based on him disliking criminality.
You think another person should feel like you do because of culture, or god, or morals, or something else.
But you’re actually trying to scold him for caring about living a peaceful and crime free existence.
That’s my take from your posts anyway.
"Love thine enemy."
I know not everyone is a christian. But aside from the fact that everyone should be, it's just good game theory. A society that has made a pact to be utilitarian still has all the justification it needs to prevent bad individual behavior, but at the same time doesn't risk arbitrarily turning its instruments of judgement against someone without regard for their preferences just because they're doing something someone else doesn't like. But to defect against that is to ask people to in turn defect against you. And as proof for the danger of that, I'd point out that that's what the OP was literally doing against these "pieces of shit"-- presumably, reacting to some prior defection. I know, in turn, that no society can survive unilateral total disarmament... but disarmament need not be total, merely proportional. Spending less of your effort caring about bad people is still better than spending none of your effort.
Plus, it's just good virtue signaling. If a man will give his son a fish, that says little about what he'll give a beggar. But if a man will give a beggar a fish, he must be generous indeed to his sons! I would rather be friends with a generous man than a stingy one, and will therefore work harder to make it into the good graces of the latter man. That's the (nonreligious) essence of being a good person: the ability to gain long-term benefits from your reputation!
More options
Context Copy link
If he had expressed basically any level of care, even a small amount I wouldn't have kept beating the dead horse here.
I also don't like these people! I also want the worst offenders removed from public spaces! Prison, involuntary commitment, etc are all valid tools here.
I think harm to them can absolutely be justified for the greater good of peaceful society.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Again, I am not surprised by that view.
To focus on the substance though, I think this is exactly where the whole impasse is coming from:
I don't agree with that at all. The extent of care that an individual deserves is contingent on their behavior, it isn't just automatically owed to everyone. Related but probably tangential here is that I also don't think I owe care to all humans around the globe and my level of care is higher or lower based on relative levels of closeness to me. For my wife, infinite care. For the guy yelling obscenities at people on the street, very little care. For the terrorist or brutal murderer, anti-care and explicit wishes for the state to terminate their existence.
On a personal level prioritization of care is right and good. What kind of world would be be in if it was morally wrong to care more about your wife!
Buying jewellery for your wife instead giving change to the crackheads on the street! Sure perfectly fine! I never give change out, I too prioritize myself and very much dislike the incentives that giving change creates.
Shooting the yelling crazy guy on sight because your children heard him say the F-word? Obviously obviously wrong. You'd call the cops on someone who did that.
There's a bar between those two extremes somewhere, if you set it low enough, even for the street crazies, that makes you a bad person. It would actually help if you specified where exactly you'd put it.
(I also think my argument here is giving the impression that my bar is very high, but it's absolutely not. I think the tolerance level is currently too high, and should be lowered, but you just can't drop it to the floor).
More options
Context Copy link
I’m curious, if you were to estimate the level of care you owe to the following people on a scale of 10 (as a brother) to -10 (omnicidal maniac), what would it be? (assuming you’re a white American)
Another white American
A white European living in Europe
A Hispanic mestizo legally living in the US
A Hispanic mestizo living in Mexico
An Ethiopian Christian
A Saudi Muslim
A black American who has been convicted of two counts of petty vandalism and one count of shoplifting
A white American who has been convicted of three counts of felony assault and one count of attempted murder
A Simbari tribesman who practices traditional pederasty rites
A black American pedophile with a preference for young white boys
That I am obligated to owe? 10. Always 10. God is pretty explicit about this.
That I am physically capable of owing without supernatural intervention?
... admittedly less than ten in all respects.
But I don't think ranking people by how much you "owe" them makes sense. If you're going to rank people, rank them by your ability to help them. If you have a glass of water and a man is about to die of heat stroke, you should give it to him regardless of which of these men he is. You should also take the chance to restrain him, if he is likely to harm innocents, but in any case should help him survive. If you have a glass of water and ten thirsty man, give it to the man for whom it maximizes the chance of survival (plus survival chance multiplied by net good the man will do over his life, to the best of your ability to estimate second-and-third-order effects.) You should help your wife, or a member of your community, over a total stranger, not because the stranger is a distinct, worse class of human, but because you are more capable of helping your wife or community member. Your help goes further, and does more good in the world. But again, that's a matter of maximizing good, not about people being entitled to different levels of brotherhood.
...and that's why I give some, but not all of the money I allocate for charity to the GiveWell foundation. It's a very cost-effective way to do lots of good, but I'm also uniquely capable of targeting "good" when it's aimed toward buying gifts for my family, or drinks for my friends, or donating to my own local parish.
More options
Context Copy link
TIL. Also, WTF.
Though from what I can gather it's not strictly pederasty because the initiations rituals and the rites of passage don't involve an adult male. It's older boys abusing and raping younger boys.
More options
Context Copy link
Assuming that these are all generic representations of people that I have not met personally and have no additional ties to:
The reason for the low valuations on the generic "these are all fine" groups at the top is that I just don't think I owe very much to distant countryman in general. My high levels of care are reserved for people that I have much closer ties to. I wish no ill on the Ethiopian Christian or Saudi Muslim, it's just not my problem how things work out for them in their faraway land.
The negative rankings are somewhat challenging owing to the fact that whatever anti-care is owed diminishes with distance, so some of these numbers reflect distaste rather than a willingness to do anything.
I don't put any meaningful emphasis on race as an element of care. Individual behavior exceeds racial preferences for me in effectively all cases.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link