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.
The most serious variation of the question is how a rational person ought to balance reasoning and intuition. Themotte is on the far end of reasoning, and the ordinary American is now on the far end of intuition.
It might be surprising for someone to learn that the greatest chess players rely on intuition more than calculated reasoning, that they apply calculation with reservation and that they first obey their intuition to determine which possibilities they ought to calculate. Why is this? Well, they know from the results that this is the best course. But the underlying reason is that there is an infinite amount of ways to calculate in chess, and only a finite amount of time on the board, and only a small amount of cognitive energy you can spend in a day. Intuition, on the other hand, freely reveals itself without effort. It’s a kind of magical efficient reward algorithm baked into the human hardware that will unconsciously determine the most reasonable course of action with varying levels of probability. Intuition poses a serious problem for “strict rationalists” who believe that if we don’t know the reason why something works, we shouldn’t use it.
Okay, back to fucking animals. Singer confines himself to a narrowly-defined analytic space to determine the moral permissibility of beastiality. This is a mistake, as there is more to the question than the sum total comfort/discomfort of the animal. A strict rationalist with messed up tendencies would now be compelled to rescue animals destined for slaughter and rape them. Intuitively, this is absolutely beastly. The natural intuition of man is that this is fucked up. But it follows from Singer’s argument. [fleshing it out: humans cannot be expected to perform difficult moral actions without reward, which is why we pay doctors handsomely and don’t expect everyone to help out orphans in their free time. If the only reason you would save an animal is to do some (horrific) action to it out of perverse joy, then according to Singer’s calculation, you should. But Singer is disproved per below.]
The replies in the comments are attempting to bring intuition back into the discussion: “Don't factory farm animals. Don't fuck animals. When are you publishing me?” “Call me crazy, but gonna go out on a limb and say there might actually be a third option for animals here.” The next step is to see why our intuition is so strong. The moderns in the replies might be loathe to hear it, but they intuitively know that human sexuality is designed for particular outlets and not others. The wrong outlet causes disgust and a general feeling of something not being right. A religious person would give a simple, oh, it insults God, and be done with it. The moderns would be too reluctant to say something like, humans shouldn’t do disgusting acts that conflict with their design, and deeply disgusting things should be banned. They are left obeying their intuition but unable to actually explain it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link