site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 29, 2023

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.

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Meantime we have learned the doctrine that evil means pain, and the revolt against pain in all its forms has grown more and more marked. From societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals up to socialism, we express in numberless ways the notion that suffering is a wrong which can be and ought to be prevented,

In fact vivisecting animals (one of the causes of the early SPCAs) is wrong and can be prevented. There's more to morality than "the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must".

Anything deviating from the obvious principle of

"the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must"

would do better to justify itself very well.

Would you rather live in a world where people make some effort to avoid unnecessary suffering, or one in which they don't? Not going to complain if you disagree, but I find this is more than enough justification.

That was a quote from (the dramatization of) Athens' treatment of the neutral Melos during the Peloponnesian War. The war ended with Athens' grand expedition destroyed, its fleets obliterated, its city sieged into starvation and disease, and its government replaced by the Thirty Tyrants.

One difficulty with acting like "the strong" is that it's easy to be wrong about that, and hard to learn you're wrong about it until too late.

Well, yes. I've read old Thuk, and I agree with the Athenians there and with your note regarding this stance. But it's my opinion that the quote requires no justification, being very obviously true, whereas anything running counter to it does require justification, since it contradicts something obviously true.

The point is that a banal statement about animal interaction doesn't necessarily allow you to deduce every human moral precept, many of which run directly contrary to the 'laws of nature'.