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 -
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