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 -
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'll repeat this more simply.
Merely removing hernias or dementia would not make it impossible to be virtuous. You could still be virtuous if dementia didn't/couldn't exist. Virtue is not reliant upon external difficulties (many of which are beyond our ability to manage as yet).
The outlook you're expressing is bizarre and anti-human too, as if the good part about virtue is not that it's helping people but that it's good in and of itself. You'd prefer a world that needs charity to one that doesn't? It's only a short step from there to chopping off baby's limbs so they make for better beggars (and allow the opportunity for alms-giving). That's what your God does de facto and it's incredible to see this principle defended albeit indirectly. He establishes a system where birth defects leave people crippled for a short and painful life... so we can be charitable to them? This is a mockery of ethics. Just have birth defects not happen!
Yeah, like having a non-deranged system of ethics. If Christians actually literally believed the ethos you're laying out and took it to its conclusions seriously, it would be a cult of unimaginable cruelty. Fortunately they don't.
Yes, I understand your position. In short, you don't value virtue except as a means to reducing suffering. Are you in fact a strict utilitarian? I find that philosophy obviously absurd because of its implications. Do you, for instance, support wire-heading as the greatest moral act?
The first thing I said to you was that you have a worldly perspective, and you've spilled a lot of digital ink agreeing with me. What you haven't done is provided any objection to my arguments on their own merits. I say: I believe in God, here's what I think God values, here's how that matches with what we see in reality. You haven't attacked the logic of my argument, you've just said 'well I don't think God should value that'. In other words, the second thing I said to you. 'If I were God, here's what I would value...'
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link