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 -
Sure, the Gazans might feel that, but you are also entitled to agitate for positive change. And that is also ok.
Going back to the airport example. We have Bob who lived there before the airport and thinks it is a nuisance and wants it gone. And we have Charlie, who moved in a week ago and thinks it is a nuisance and wants it gone.
How long they have been there has no bearing on the objective reality of whether the airport is more of a negative than benefit to the locals. Its ok for Bob to pressure the government but not Charlie, even for exactly the same reasons?
The Gaza example falls under "are you allowed to shoot them? If so, you're also allowed to do a lot of other things that are beyond the pale."
It would be perfectly fine to walk into Gaza and start shooting people who are planning murder and genocide. (It may be unwise, if you don't want to die, but it wouldn't be wrong.) If it's okay to shoot them, it's okay to do other things, like ignore the rules they put on you being there.
Then people who disagree with Western morality are entirely free to come here and do exactly what they want? That's the logical outcome of that position. If you think abortion is murder, you should be able to move to the US and murder Americans who support it?
That's like saying "what? You think that anyone who owns a burger should be able to eat it? Then people who disagree about who owns a burger are free to eat whichever burger they want!" No. You can be right or wrong about whether you own a particular burger. The fact that true owners and false owners have similar mental states doesn't mean that we have to tolerate false but sincere claims of ownership.
"Is it okay to shoot them?" doesn't have an answer independent of the specific facts of the case. It's not okay to shoot people for having abortions.
In your opinion. And I would agree! But others may not. There is not a generalizable principle to be derived here. If it is ok to go to Palestine and shoot people who are going to murder Israelis then people who truly think abortion is murder, have the same logical justification.
And that is my point, the only justification can be, because I think it's right, to ignore these rules when I go there. But it's wrong when they ignore these rules when they go somewhere else. So all the stuff about how people should just assimilate and not complain about the rules and cultures of the places they move to is only based upon if you think those rules and cultures are good or not. That's it.
That's not reasoning we accept anywhere else.
"If it's okay to eat a burger because you own it, what about people who truly think they own that burger?"
"If it's okay to go at 60 mph because that's the speed limit, what about people who truly think the speed limit is X mph?"
"If it's okay to take merchandise from a store if you paid for it, what about people who truly believe they've paid for something?"
Whether someone can truly (but not truthfully) believe something is irrelevant.
All of those are factual claims though. Did you go 60 mph or 70. Whether murdering Istaelis is equivelent to aborting babies is a moral one. Thats my point.
I may disagree with HlynkaCG but his position seems to be consistent at least. But if your position is that it depends on the moral valence of the rules in question, then i think you have to logically accept that applies to people who will have different moral intuitions to you.
And just to clarify, thats ok. I am not exactly a moral relativist so i completely accept some moral codes are simply better than others. But it means there is no logical principle that can be applied universally. If you think murdering Israelis is worse than aborting babies and therefore would fight against that, but not against abortion, then just say that. I'd probably agree. But it doesn't give us a universally applicable rule of when we assimilate to the rules of an alien culture and ehen we do not. When it conflicts with my own moral code, is an individual approach.
Which is what makes HlynkaCG's position interesting as a conservative. It illustrates the difference not between a liberal and a conservative, but between a collectivist and an individualist.
Whether it's factual is irrelevant to your argument. Your argument is "couldn't someone truly think X?" It's possible to truly think X whether X is factual or not.
But it's not hard to think of examples without that nitpick. Instead of 60 mph, think of "are you driving at a safe speed?" It's a judgment call, yet we still require people to drive at a safe speed and we don't say "couldn't someone truly think that any speed is safe?" You can kill in self-defense, and it's certainly possible for anyone to truly think that a killing is self-defense, but self-defense is still a useful concept. Whether someone consents to sex is in the real world not a yes/no thing, and "couldn't someone truly think that a victim has 'consented'" doesn't negate the idea.
Even the examples I already gave aren't really like that. Someone could have a moral code under which, for instance, capitalist exploiters don't truly own their property, it's all stolen property which is really owned by the proletariat; whether you own that burger is just as much a moral issue as whether abortion is murder. But trhe fact that people can have moral disagreements which lead them to conclude that you don't own your burger doesn't mean that "you can eat a burger if you own it" becomes useless.
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
That's one of the many problems with utilitarianism, who has a moral right to agitate for change is unrelated to whether or not the airport is a net benefit. Those who knowingly move near an airport and then complain about it are whiny bitches that will ruin society if we give them any credence, and it's our moral duty to tell them to shut the hell up, completely independent of if the airport is a good or bad thing.
In fact, a localish example recently here in Utah was that several developers built new houses in Lehi, Utah. The new residents then started complaining about the smell from the nearby mink farms and demanded that they got shut down, which they partially succeeded at . The right thing to do would have been to tell these whiny bitches that they shouldn't have moved close to a mink farm if they didn't want to have to deal with the smell. For the record I don't live in Lehi and have no connection to either the mink farms or the whiny residents.
That still doesn't address the people who were there before the mink farm. Should the mink farmers not have moved in, in the first place and inflicted the smell upon them? Presumably they are able to complain? (and if there weren't any in this particular instance, imagine there were). I'm not a utilitarian, but the same argument from a pre or post event mover is still just as valid (or invalid as the case may be).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link