site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31255 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023

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.

14
Top Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Surely one can derive rich life meaning by dedicating oneself to serving the needs of strangers. Many people do, after all. And it does seem a bit . . . unreflective to cast what is little more than ingroup bias as " a moral world of intimacy." Not all that is normal is good.

deleted

I would not describe feelings of intimacy and obligation to one's family as "little more than ingroup bias," and I would hold that describing it in this way demonstrates my point that something is lacking in the moral worldview of someone who describes it as such.

I didn't say that. OP said: "I do not feel any special love for my family qua family, let alone people who share my ethnicity. Definitely I do not think I have any special moral obligations towards my family... that I do not have for others."

So, IF someone feels intimacy with his family, great! But OP didn’t say otherwise. OP's point is that one need not feel greater moral obligations to your family , qua family -- simply because they are family, than you do to others. The argument otherwise -- that you per se have a greater moral obligation to your cousin than to a stranger, regardless of your personal feelings for him, is precisely a form of in-group bias. Your argument re the value of feelings of intimacy relate to a different question.

Depending on what we mean by 'rich'. You can derive a 'rich' life from servicing a litter of cats. That doesn't change the fact that the people who do so look, for some reason, desperate, pathetic and pitiable next to a person who serviced their own children instead.

I'm not trying to cast shade on people who dedicate themselves to servicing animals. It's just a matter of fact. Any substitute for an actual child and an actual family looks like the cope that it is. All energy expended in a direction that's not familial has, in some sense, an essence of waste about it in comparison.

I don't understand how how it looks to others is relevant. And, is every Catholic priest and nun "desperate, pathetic and pitiable"? Their congregations, etc, are explicitly described as substitutes for actual children, if I am not mistaken.

I think the truth value of the pity people feel towards a person who dotes over their cat as if it were a child is that cats are not children. A cat will never say 'I love you' back. So much emotional effort being spent on something that will never return it to anyone. It's the same reason people feel pity when watching someone earnestly playing slots as if they were going to win their money back. It's not visible to the person that is emotionally invested in their little world. But from an outside view the entire endeavor is obviously sad, since you can so easily see the futility of it. Instead of throwing your money away, maybe save it or buy something useful. Maybe instead of investing all your love into a cat, invest it into a child.

I think Catholicism is much more than just desperate, pathetic and pitiable. It's tragic. And that's, I think, part of the point of the plight of nuns and the burdens of celibate clergy. There is beauty in sacrifice. There is honor in deadly devotion. And those elements exist precisely because of what is being sacrificed. None if it changes the fact that it is stupid, and that I am against the practice of celibacy for those who have so much to give. But at least, to some extent, they are self aware. It's a plight. A burden. A sacrifice. Proof of devotion to a higher power. An overcoming of sin. I don't think many cat oriented people couch their love for animals in the same manner.

Compare the 'tapestry' of life of an ancient rvman warrior or military commander to that same person's life if they stayed a family peasant for life. Or CEO of company vs janitor who spends lots of time with his wife and kifs. Multiple things compete with 'intimacy with family' in 'purpose for life', and the latter isn't always, or even usually, better. Dedicating oneself to animal rescue, which isn't a strawman so much as a massive field of charity, may be worse than 'family', but that's a criticism of the former, not an endorsement of universal superiority of the latter.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly. You can find purpose in life pulling the handle on a slot machine. The point being made is that even if it might not be obvious to the one emotionally invested in buying spins, it's very obvious to the outside observer that they are doing something sad. That there is in fact a universally superior alternative to spending all your time devoted to your pet animals. Even if it might be hard for the animal lover to see. Just like it might be hard for the slot machine player to see. None of that changes the superiority of the alternatives.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats