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 -
Lol, I guess it really would be that simple. It sounds so autistic "it is an interesting hypothetical question" without even considering people would find it inappropriate.
Straining to find a good reason for that: it works to filter out normies. If you balk at that, then that's your clue you are in the wrong place.
--George Orwell, 1984
I would guess that the cow question is trying to filter against that.
The cow question is similar to "have you stopped beating your wife" in that the literal truthful answer of an innocent person would, by implicature, suggest guilt. It's preposterous to describe someone objecting to that as not grasping analogies, logical errors, etc.
"would you rather" questions are not at all the same as questions that smuggle in unsupported assumptions. The cow question doesn't force you to say you enjoy either dead or living cows, it merely asks you to decide what you prefer-- with the goal of getting you to examine what your moral rules and foundational assumptions about the universe are. Not being able to answer the cow question is a red flag in the same way as not being able answer the trolley question. It's entirely reasonable to distrust people who either refuse to analyze their own system of morality and apply it in self-consistent ways or else refuse to describe and stand by their morals for fear of social sanction.
And the question about beating your wife doesn't ask if you haven't stopped because you are doing it and wish to continue, it just asks if you haven't stopped. Someone who doesn't beat their wife hasn't stopped beating their wife, after all. It's a perfectly truthful answer to say "no, I haven't stopped beating my wife".
But the person asking the question knows very well that by implicature, saying that you haven't stopped means that you are doing it and are continuing, even if literally speaking, if you don't beat your wife you won't be stopping.
Likewise, although the question about cows doesn't literally mean that you enjoy one of the two options, by implicature it does.
Are you speaking a completely foreign dialect of english than me? I checked merriam webster and none of the definitions for "rather" imply that you must objectively enjoy the subject being discussed-- merely that you must prefer it against an alternative. Yes, the person you're speaking to could then make the argument that if you prefer A to B the only possible reason must be that you like A, but that argument would be obviously fallacious unless they can prove that you like B.
Meanwhile, the overt meaning of "stop" is that you are ending an action that would otherwise continue. Given the context of the conversation, the only continuing action that could possibly be referenced would be "beating your wife." You can't just think up another continuing action in your head to reference and then answer "no" to that instead. That would be a falsehood within the context of the conversation. Imagine a polygamist and domestic abuser on trail for beating his first wife, who when asked that question decides it refers to his second wife and then answers "no." He could construct an imaginary context in which that answer was truthful, but that would not be the context of the conversation.
I can imagine a modified variant of the cow question designed to imply that the person answering must be a pervert... "Which one would you love more, fucking a dead cow or a live one?" for example. But the exact formulation of the question by Aella was, "If you had to have sex with a cow would you rather it be dead or alive? Why?” and that seems like a fair framing to me. Especially since it is explicitly not a yes/no question.
Look, all this should be obvious from first principles simply by changing the incriminating word. If you switch "beating" to "building" or "reanimating" or "electing" on any other valid word that implies an ongoing action that isn't ongoing, the question is just as incomprehensible. That remains true even if the word is positive, like "petting." Meanwhile, the cow question still makes perfect sense with "have sex with" modified to anything else you can do to a cow. "pet," "eat," "build" elect," "beat," etcetera.
It sounds like the reason you think the cow question is a trap is because you're exactly the kind of person who would fallaciously use it as a trap. That says more about you than it does about Aella.
Because words imply things that are not mentioned in the dictionary as being implied by them.
The implication depends on context, which the dictionary cannot list. Furthermore, implicature is not quite the same thing as "imply" here; implicature is about what humans use the words to imply. And what humans use words to imply doesn't summarize into a compact set of rules that could be put in a dictionary; you can only learn it through social skills, not by following a written rule.
That would only be true if there is a compact word-independent rule. There isn't.
"rather" can be used to imply objective preference, but that connotation isn't implicit in the word. Compare a much more charged word, like "good" which by default has the implication of both moral goodness and suitability for purpose. Therefore assuming a negative implication to the word requires assuming negative intent from it's user-- and if the person you are arguing with is arguing in bad faith, then you might as well assume that they can twist any question-- and consequently that the question itself isn't actually the problem. In particular, you bring up--
But that's exactly what I'm addressing! Neither the cow question nor the wife-beating question have ambiguous contexts. The cow question is legitimate specifically because, in context, there is no implication of preference and the only reason you would humiliate yourself is because whatever internal reason you have for choosing one answer or another is socially unacceptable. The wife-beating question is not legitimate, because to answer it you necessarily either need to lie or muddy the context, which would decrease your social status in a matter independent from whether you are actually a wife beater.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link