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 -
You seem to me to have a set of implicit standards about the Good which I'm not necessarily disagreeing with but would like to lay out in more detail when we are, ultimately, discussing banning things people like doing.
To me, you seem to be saying broadly:
As a former and still-occasional weirdo loner whose idea of paradise is still often a big library and a lifetime to spend in it, I guess my first question is whether you see inherent value in passive entertainment that needs to be traded off against health, instrumental goals, and long-term sources of satisfaction/happiness, and/or whether you are suspicious of passivity and consider strenuousness and discomfort as a moral good in and of itself?
I correlate a good life with a healthy mind and body. The healthier you are, the better your life is likely to be. I order to achieve good physical and mental health, there are certain needs which must be met. I will highlight three, that I believe the current state of entertainment interferes with:
In your example of a paradise, I assume you also won't have to work. If so, you may not have these problems. You could spend 10 hours a day exploring your library, and still have ample time left to handle your needs. But when more than eight hours a day is spent on commuting and work, the equation changes. Even just four hours spent on the internet means you will likely have to make sacrifices elsewhere (sleep, socializing, exercise, and so on).
I don't consider strenuousness and discomfort as moral goods, but I do believe that some amount of adversity is probably necessary to live a good life. Consider an extreme example, where you have a button that you can press which floods your brain with pressure hormones, for a short time making you feel intense bliss and removing any pain or negative emotions you may have. You do not build a tolerance, and there are no side effects in the classical sense. Only, pressing the button will at any time be the most pleasurable thing you could do. Let us also say that in this world, you can replace your job with pushing the button. So if you want, every push also transfers money into your bank account, which can be used to purchase whatever necessities you may need.
This sounds horrifying to me. Even though there is an argument to be made that a society of button pushers would be heaven on earth, I just can't buy that this would be good. So while discomfort is not itself a good thing, it is probably necessary in some amount.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link