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 -
There's no extra factor, I'm just observing something that isn't explained by your theory, through experience itself.
I don't know whether you experience the same phenomenon I do, and frankly that doesn't really matter. Cartesianism isn't a language trick, it's describing something that's just categorically true which I can test right now.
This premise is unsubstantiated, is my whole argument.
You're what some philosophers of science call a naïve empiricist in that you deny the existence of a priori knowlege and think that all that can be known can be derived from observation of the natural world and its processes alone.
It is not surprising that you'd find yourself at odds with people like Hynkla and myself who are ostensibly related to mathematics, because math is the most solid and evident form of apriori knowledge we have.
But crucially, qualia is also among that category. Which is why I'm helplessly trying to make you understand that a completely material model of the world is insufficient and flawed and you're most likely never going to agree because you either don't feel the same way I do about experience or you refuse to examine the Cartesian argument critically because materialism is foundational to all that you know to be true, and that's a big ask.
See, who gives a shit about things being advantageous, I want to know what is true.
As for aspersions about my selective skepticism, I resent that. I get in enough arguments about metaphysics with enough people with wildly different opinions to at least be afforded the charity that I'm genuine in my pessimism about the possibility of knowledge.
To start with, I'm always biffing with naive rationalists who believe the exact inverse of what you do, and are also overtly confident in their certainty.
More options
Context Copy link