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 -
Recently, I've been subjected to several posts on Twitter about Peter Singer. Singer posits a compelling argument: Society accepts a certain concept, A, yet its variant A', which along many relevant dimensions is similar to A but should be less objectionable, is met with taboo. Here is Singer's post, although I don't want to get into the the details because I'm thinking not about the argument itself but the prevalent reaction to it. The most common response to Singer's points is not an intellectual rebuttal but rather an expression of shock and outrage. The taboo around A' is like an emotional firewall, preventing any rational discourse.
This pattern of reaction is disconcerting. We live in a world of complex issues that demand thoughtful consideration, yet it appears that a significant portion of discourse is reduced to emotional outbursts. It's really hard for me not to feel disheartened or even adopt a misanthropic view when I see things like this.
So, is this emotional explosiveness truly representative of the general populace, or is it just that on Twitter, the most extreme views gain the most traction? Moreover, how can we, as individuals seeking constructive dialogue, navigate this landscape without succumbing to frustration or misanthropy?
I'm genuinely interested in understanding whether these reactions are as pervasive as they seem and what strategies we might employ to foster more meaningful, thought-provoking conversations, especially in a world dominated by emotional responses.
Besides being obvious sneerclub bait, this post is kind of ridiculous because you can sum it up as "Why does the Motte exist?", but I just want to know if there is any way to bring more people into the Motte's style of discourse or how serious a problem it is that some people are seemingly unpersuadable.
There seems to be an epidemic of low decouplers on the Motte, most obviously notable by their inability to entertain hypotheticals the moment they become controversial in the least. Perhaps it's always been that way, but it stands out to me and I've been here for years, if not right from the start.
And the Motte is better in terms of quality of discussions than any other place on the open internet that I'm aware of, just imagine how awful it is elsewhere!
At any rate, I agree with Singer that by most formalized standards of morality endorsed by most people, it's farcical that eating non-human animals is widely acceptable, while having sex with them isn't.
However, modus ponens and modus tollens apply, so my take is that it's okay to do both! As is sadly necessary for topics such as these, while I accept people wanting to fuck nonhuman animals, that doesn't mean I want to do so myself. The fact that this disclaimer is even needed is yet another sign that the low decouplers are multiplying.
Your notion of entertaining hypotheticals seems to be "agree with them". 'Oh, you don't like that proposal, you disagree with it? You're a low decoupler who's too stupid to be able to think abstractly'. That seems to be your go-to position.
Listen, you want to fuck goats? That's your thing, but don't try and get around objections with "Why are people so mean to me about goat-fucking, it must be because they're all too stupid to think outside of conventional notions".
Cool down a bit, please, this is much more antagonistic than I'd like.
More options
Context Copy link
I had no intent of calling you out as a low decoupler, but that's evidently true, from this comment alone if nothing else. You've certainly been here as long or longer than I have, so you're nothing new in that regard.
I entertain plenty of hypotheticals because that's the form of entertainment I enjoy on the Motte, most of the reason I'm here if I'm being honest. I'd like you to point out any prolific poster who doesn't discuss things they agree with more than they don't, and I think I have a proven track record of tolerating or engaging in discussion about topics I don't personally prefer:
For example, in the recent discussion about the UK government refusing to let a baby with a terminal illness be taken to a Vatican hospital in Italy, I made it clear that while I agree that subjecting the baby to further care is both useless and close to torture, I still uphold the right of the child's guardians to avail of any opportunity for further care, especially since it costs the British taxpayer little to minimal extra money, since I strongly support the right to pursue treatment no matter how dubious, especially on your own dime or that of a sympathetic organization/charity. Congratulations, you're confronted with an example of me supporting an action on principled grounds even if I vehemently think it's a bad idea and those doing it are being a combination of stupid and cruel.
At any rate, calling someone who has no principled moral objection to fucking goats a goat-fucker is dumb, plain and simple.
Besides, the ability to decouple correlates strongly with intelligence and an ability to think analytically, yet there are plenty of otherwise intelligent people who are unable to do so. I don't think you're too stupid to think outside conventional notions, merely dogmatic about not doing so when it offends you.
I don't mind being called a "low decoupler" or "stupid moron" or the other sweet nothings, when it comes to "aw c'mon, can't you even think about why fucking six year olds/fucking goats isn't a big deal?" is the measure by which I'm being judged.
Quite happy to be a no-class moron who doesn't approve of kid-fucking (human or goat).
It's poor form, and worthy of mod action for me to make such claims about you, but I'm a fan of self-identification in most things, and I'm not going to protest particularly hard about well the
shoekid leather gloves fit.What I do resent is the implication that just because I don't condemn bestiality out of hand, that makes me a goat fucker.
It anyone thinks, by insinuation or association, that I advocate for fucking the other kind of kid, let it be clear that the argument was once again in the context of the merits of decoupling, and why a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of a "6 year old having sex" might be dumb if, after cognitive/physical enhancement, said six year old was smarter than Von Neumann and had the physical body the average 25 yo would kill for. Notice the notable absence of any implications for what sex with the current average 6 year old child would entail, and the only reason I bring up that hypothetical is because I think cognitive enhancement is both a very much doable technology today, and one that will be increasingly robust in mere decades. Or you might just imagine a child born, if not on Mars, then in the orbit of Jupiter, where "6 years" means something very different to what it does today. Does a change in fact change the implication? If so, congratulations and welcome to decoupling.
This simple inability to entertain hypotheticals or consider where heuristics fail makes me more disgusted by low decouplers of any ideology than I am of someone who decides to shag their sheep. At least he's not really hurting my sanity in the process.
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