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, I didn't. Go back and check the username you grabbed the quote from.
If you're going to be an asshole and call my arguments "stupid", maybe make sure you're replying to the right user.
So, I'm going to skip over defending an argument I never actually made.
Stop making stuff up.
I never claimed I did. Stop making stuff up.
2+2=4 is a useful, coherent model for counting discrete entities. I "know" it is true insofar as it consistently works.
2+2=4 is not universally physically true. If I add 2 clouds to 2 clouds, I don't (necessarily) get 4 clouds, because clouds are not a discrete entity that's appropriate for modelling via addition.
But within mathematics, within the rules of the game of addition, 2+2=4. If you think that's not "justified", then i reject your concept of justification as being useful.
You're still making statements like this that don't mean anything.
This is a parody, right? I literally flagged up "modal collapse" as the primary example of nonsense phrases you're using. You're not using simple words in this explanation. I don't think you can use simple words, because you're not actually conveying any kind of coherent concept; you're just stringing together big words in a way that feels like an explanation to you.
And no, Godel's god doesn't "solve the problem of unprovable truths"; that's nonsense, and shows you don't understand Godel.
No, I didn't. Please stop lying.
If you're going to be childish and rude, try actually reading the comment you're replying to.
It does not matter in this case. The point was usage of universal claims without justification. Which you claimed right here in this discussion bellow.
And? Telling stories about unicorns to my daughter also works consistently, the same about stories about all kind of made up things. But that is also besides the meta-point I am making - why is "consistently works" any form of justification? What does it even mean and how did you came up with it?
Excellent. We discovered a difference of counting by identity vs division. However the realm of numbers is realm of counting by identity, so this analogy does not wok. 2+2=4 is either true or false, there is nothing like "kind of". We are talking about a concrete thing - abstract concept of standard numbers and not clouds or persons inside Trinity. Which is by the way a good argument against OP's Gnosticism.
And here we are. A universal metaphysical game. Either you believe 2+2=4 or you are out. You reject the concept of justification of anything outside of 2+2=4, because presumably it goes against your presupposition. Anything other than 2+2=4 such as 2+2=5 or 2+2=6 up to 2+2=Googleplex is not part of this presupposition and thus an incoherent paradigm not to be taken seriously. If somebody believes in his drug induced schizoid mania that all + operations are 42, you would discard it as incoherent and not worth any serious discussion.
This is exactly my position but on meta-level higher. There are paradigms with no justification for 2+2=4, they have no grounding and even worse, they positively reject the only entity - GOD - that could provide such grounding. As you named it, they break rule of "math" and metaphysics and thus they speak gibberish. Now you may have some inkling of my presuppositional argument.
You yourself said that You can assume that I'm familiar with Godel's ontological proof, mathematically capable, etc.. I don't want to waste more time on this. Do you want to explain the analogy or not? It is not crucial for my point. If you do not grasp it, that is still okay.
Actually it does matter that you're ascribing quotes to me that I never said, and positions that I don't hold.
Not in the way that 2+2=4 "works". You're extremely confused if you think you can just conflate two entirely different meanings of the word "work".
Then first you need to justify why "justification" matters. What do you even mean by it?
No, sorry, that's nonsense. You failed to understand. This has nothing to do with identity or division.
Mathematics consists of models. One such model is "here are the natural numbers, and we can use addition on them". This is good for counting things like pebbles, so we use it for that. This is bad for counting things like clouds, so we don't use it for that.
Nowhere has identity or division entered into it.
It is true, within the rules of the model. And we also use it as a shorthand for another true statement: "If you have two things, and another two things, and you group them together -- without breaking anything or fusing anything together -- you end up with four things".
... in what world are numbers concrete and clouds not??
You really need to use simple language. You're tangling yourself up. What do these statements even mean?
No, I don't. Stop making stuff up.
Still meaningless. I have no idea what you're talking about, and neither do you. If I'm wrong, try and communicate it using plain English. No "meta", no "paradigmatic", no "metaphysical".
I did. I also explicitly said that phrases like "modal collapse" were meaningless and making you confused. You then decided to use "modal collapse" in your simple words explanation. If you actually understand what you're talking about, you can explain it without saying "modal collapse".
I'd love an explanation. A genuine explanation that doesn't hide behind using complicated words to disguise the fact that there's no actual substance there.
Look, here's how you sound to me. Suppose I said something like this: "Here's an analogy: the atavistic ontological modalities of pseudo-presuppositionalist frameworks lack consanguinity with the indirect supplication of their co-philosophies."
And then you ask me to explain what that means, and I sneer and say "oh, I suppose if you're not smart enough to understand part of my analogy".
That's ok. Neither of us grasps it.
Just read what I said. I critiqued access to unjustified universal categories. That is the point.
Usually if people use these words like "useful" or "works" they are concept from philosophical pragmaticism. So please do not leave me in a suspense and tell me what do you mean by "works" and "useful".
Do you know how to read? I specified it in the very same sentence: saying that "abstract concept of standard numbers and not clouds". The abstract entity of "2" is not identical to two clouds or two bananas. But I am willing to go there if you wish as this is exactly touching the metaphysics: what are numbers, how are they existing, where are they existing?
I do not have to explain words to you. You yourself said that you are knowledgeable about Godel's ontological proof. Google it with conjuction with "modal collapse" in "plain English". I do not know what you want at this point - should I define the word definition in plain English?
What are you talking about. There is literal wiki article about Godels ontological proof. Modal collaps is literally a subcategory with its own wiki page. If you are too simple or lazy to grasp it, then that is okay. And it is not even necessary, it was just part of the analogy But do not blame me on using the terms.
What you said was that I made a bunch of claims that I did not, in fact, make. I don't know why you're incapable of admitting you're wrong or apologising for making up things about another user.
The ordinary everyday meaning. This isn't complicated. By "works", I mean: "If you use 2+2=4 when measuring out ingredients for a dish, you'll get the right proportions. If you use 2+2=4 when designing a plane, you'll get a plane that flies. If you use 2+2=4 when figuring out how much change to give a customer, you'll give them the correct amount of change".
This is obviously entirely different to the way you used "works" in your facetious unicorn analogy, where you mean something like "telling this story accomplishes my goals".
Now please define exactly what you mean by "so", "please", "do", "not", "leave", and so on, for every other commonplace word you used.
Yes. Your English is poor. I assume your native language is something Eastern European (judging by how often you omit articles). While I recognise it's a feat to discuss complicated things in your second language, you could maybe have a bit more humility concerning whether the communication issue might be on your end.
It is unusual to describe "the abstract concept of numbers" as concrete, given that "abstract" and "concrete" are pretty close to antonyms.
Agreed, of course.
Already covered this. Mathematics consists of models, which you can think of as games or systems consisting of rules. Numbers are elements within particular mathematical models. Numbers are things like 5, 2.45, and 1,000.
I have no idea what this kind of question means, for any subject. "How is an apple existing" -- what does this mean?
You seem confused. Numbers are abstract concepts. They aren't like apples or horses; they're not in a location. That's like asking "where is justice existing?"
I never said you did, nor would I think you capable.
But you said you were giving me a simple-word explanation of your analogy, and used the phrase "modal collapse". You're under no obligation to give me a simple-word explanation, but if you pretend to be giving me one while using nonsense phrases, I'm going to point it out.
You know exactly what I want, as I've said it explicitly twice now. You literally just offered what I want: a plain English explanation of your analogy, without using any bullshit phrases like "modal collapse". You don't need to define individual words or phrases, just say your analogy using normal words.
There's a literal wiki article on Transubstantiation. That doesn't mean that Transubstantiation isn't meaningless bullshit; the existence of a wikipedia page doesn't save it.
If you think your point is meaningful, you can explain it in simple words. You keep refusing to do this and pretending not to understand.
Ok, buddy. Maybe learn to spell, as a bare minimum, before accusing other people of being stupid.
This is just pragmatic argument. But again, did you ever try to ask question of why this is the case? The so called The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics? There is no easy answer to this. Many people are just saying "math works", which is their presupposition, a bling belief in the "Truth" of math. But it is still unreasonable, do you have any explanation of why is that and how math works? Otherwise it is just case of blind belief, something akin to Pythagorean cult.
How is it different? I use something, it accomplishes my goals which is the way of how I decide what is true or not. Again, if this is not the case then tell me your epistemological principle and how you decide what is truth.
Thank you for your ad hominem. At least I know how to read wiki page of Gödel's ontological proof.
Yes, for somebody discussing in bad faith. It is absolutely common to use the word "concrete" in realm of abstraction. For instance things like "present a concrete proof" or "give me a concrete example of an odd number". Is this a novel linguistic lesson from Eastern European for you?
Oh, numbers are "elements". Okay. Unicorns are elements. They are things like Pinkie Pie or Fluttershy. Again, what are the numbers, why are they and how are they. Going in epicycles and naming numbers as "concepts" or "elements" and giving examples is not enough. Or we can also play this game - God is an all powerful being and as an example he consists of three persons in a Godhead - Father, Son and The Holy Spirit. It is my assertion. Please accept it just because I said it.
So how do numbers exist? They do exist without location, they are omnipresent. Wow, we are getting into quite supernatural territory here, numbers are omnipresent and posses one of the godly attribute. How do you know this is the case? Did you directly tap with your senses into number axis and felt all the numbers in their infinitude? How can empiricist prove existence of abstract concept such as numbers in the first place?
You said yourself that you are well versed with Godels ontological proof and related concepts. I gave you wiki page for the proof as well as for the modal collapse. I do not have to continue with this, just argue with wiki page that is written in plain English and then give me further questions. Also I hope that you remember that I used it as an analogy.
@Amadan, I'd appreciate some mod feedback on whether there's an appropriate way to reply to this, if you have time.
So far, georgioz has yelled "FUCK YOU" at me, called me simple and stupid multiple times, created strawmen of my position (including misattributing quotes from other users to me), and repeatedly evaded requests to just explain his position by insinuating that I can't read.
You gave him a one-day ban for the "FUCK YOU".
You then also gave me a one-day ban for responding to him with condescension and snark. (Subjectively, less condescension than he was throwing at me.) Which... fair enough, I guess, in isolation. I could've been a bit less patronising. (Though the most patronising thing I said, "ok buddy", is a phrase you yourself have also used in this thread.) There are also a few places where I'm being blunt and direct (e.g. calling a phrase "nonsense") for the sake of trying to clarify the conversation, but that could be read as part of a pattern of condescension, even when that's not the intent.
But a one-day ban for "FUCK YOU" + you're simple/stupid + condescension, and a one-day ban for being condescending in return, doesn't seem proportionate. After @naraburns banned me a month ago for responding to bait with too much heat, I've tried to learn that lesson (which required me to get over a lot of frustration at that ban). This time, I didn't escalate even after being told "FUCK YOU" -- I just said "excuse me?" -- but I still get the same ban?
I'm pretty sure that If I said "FUCK YOU" to Amadan out of nowhere, I'd get much more than a one-day ban.
Now georgioz is continuing the conversation. I think there are actually useful things to discuss here, which is why I kept trying to get him to explain his position. But I'm getting the same attacks:
I don't think we are symmetrically "behaving terribly". I'm asking georgioz to explain his positions in his own words, which is kind of the entire point of this place. In return, he keeps pointing me to wikipedia and telling me I can't read.
This isn't symmetric.
So, is there actually a way I can respond to this, that doesn't require me to be a punching bag? There are actually interesting discussions we can have around this. I want to have them. I'm trying to elicit that discussion (though yes, in a way that was too snarky). But it seems that I have to just accept being told "FUCK YOU", and being told I'm simple and stupid, and that I can't read; and that if I condescend at all in return, we're both "behaving terribly".
I'm frustrated because I did actually put effort into trying to make the conversation go somewhere useful. Yes, I could've (and should've) been less condescending. But if I'm going to be told I'm behaving terribly, regardless of how much effort or heat or aggression each person is putting in, it all just feels a bit pointless.
I'm not Amadan, but you tagged me, so I will point out that we actually tend to give much longer bans for straight up "fuck you"-type posts. In this case, Georgioz has an almost completely uninterrupted moderation record of several AAQCs. Because this is a reputation economy, we're much more likely to look at a user with a good record and say, "okay, not sure what's happening here, this person does not usually behave this way, maybe they are having a bad day" and we assign a lighter penalty than we normally would. If the behavior continues, the penalties do escalate!
The other half of this is that other people's bad behavior is never an excuse. The best way to respond will always be to respond within the remit of the rules; the second best thing to do is to not respond. When others are baiting you, dogpiling you, etc. remember that the goal is light, not heat, and responding to heat with heat only compounds the problem. We want to encourage discussion and we try to be reasonable about the fact that sometimes even productive discussions get a bit heated, but at some point we have to step in.
In this particular case, the penalties were light for both of you, which seems like the right call to me. These were "cool off" bans. But the length in part reflected your respective posting histories. This is the third time you've been moderated for letting people draw (or bait) you into a heated exchange. This is interesting to me in part because it suggests on the one hand that you are basically rule-abiding, which is great! But you seem to take other people's bad behavior as an excuse to respond in kind, but it's not.
More generally, this advice probably applies as much in life as on the Motte: if someone drops a "FUCK YOU" in your direction, unless you have an extremely solid plan for rapid de-escalation, you are almost certainly best off to disengage immediately.
EDIT: Looks like Amadan responded while I was thinking about this, so, there you go.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond. And I basically agree with the stance as you've described it.
I just object to stuff like this:
You previously correctly called me out for this, and I modified my behaviour to not do this. When georgioz said "FUCK YOU", I didn't respond in kind.
I took your previous advice, as incredibly frustrating as that was. But you're still treating my behaviour as if I'm just going maximum heat in response to bait, which I'm not.
I agree with the reputation system, but it's absurd that it stretches to treating "FUCK YOU" + "you are stupid and simple and can't read" (not a quote) as equivalent to some calm, reactive condescension.
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