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.
Singer's argument isn't going to attract much of a response even in the best case. I think it comes off as lazy.
It's not a new issue. I'm sure there has been plenty written on it before. If Singer had done the obvious reading then he should be presenting the common counter arguments and rebutting them. He's not doing that, so he's either hiding them or hasn't done his homework.
He's got to at least make a cursory comment about zoonotic disease risks to be taken seriously.
Twitter's format does favour quick emotional responses so it's not really a good format for a charged discussion.
I don't think Singer was lazy in the least, and he has a sufficient body of literature out there for anyone who wishes to find proof of effort outside of a tweet. I guess that's one of the perks of being a renowned philosopher/ethicist, not having to repeat yourself that is.
He'd certainly recoil with horror given my interpretation of the fact that for most moralities, it's inconsistent to decry bestiality but endorse meat eating, but we both agree it's an inconsistency worth resolving, even if in polar opposite ways.
Really? You think that would appease everyone?
Very well, let's pretend he suggested that people fucking animals wear a condom. Problem solved, or at least solved to the same extent as things like animal husbandry or keeping pets still contribute to zoonotic disease, and vanishingly few condemn them on those grounds.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I sincerely doubt that if Singer had amended his statement to endorse only bestiality where prophylaxis was used, you'd be swayed one jot more than you were..
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, between 'every person who want to have sex with animals owning one animal in their home to have sex with' vs 'the entire global factory farming and livestock industry in all it forms', I'm gonna guess that the latter produces many orders of magnitude more zoonotic disease risk.
Sometimes an objection being common doesn't mean it's good, and I don't think every objection deserves a mention every time you talk about something.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link