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 point hinges on the assumption that we, as a society, share an utilitarian ethic, which we don't, really, even if we often use utilitarian argument to try to justify moral points that are really based on other moral criteria. I mean, Singer should know this, considering he has dedicated his life to trying (and failing) make utilitarianism a thing, often failing precisely because he takes utilitarianism to logical conclusions that cause others to go "Uhh, wait, that's what it meant all along? I don't support that, that's insane/disgusting!"
In the end, the societal function of the prohibition against having sex with animals, like the prohibition against personally causing animals unnecessary pain, is a sort of a sieve meant to bring out and weed out insane persons before they cause harm to people. It's very obvious when we're talking about torturing animals - how often is stereotype of serial killers torturing small animals as kids before graduating to people as adults referred to in the media, how example? - and having sex with animals, in addition to arousing a strong disgust reaction, is also something that's considered the providence of insane people of the sort that no longer understand or care about the correct delineation of people from animals.
Eating meat, on the other hand, doesn't of course carry the same idea of insanity, since it's normal in our society (and most human societies that have existed) - unless it's human meat, which again arouses a disgust reaction and is considered something done by insane people who, again, do not understand the correct delineation of people from animals, expect in a whole other way.
I disagree that this is necessarily a consequence of utilitarianism, be it in the original Benthamite sense or the offshoots endorsed by Effective Altruists who extend utility to animals.
For one, I'm very much not a utilitarian, merely a consequentalist, which is a much broader category (I'd go so far as to say most Deontologists are just the same in denial). Of course, I draw the opposite conclusion he does, namely that it's okay to both eat and have sex with non-human animals, even if I don't claim either are morally laudable, merely neutral.
Now this is perfectly true in the case of Singer himself, but I consider a world where prawns and pigeons are given significant moral weight to be abhorrent in themselves, especially when you multiply by total population.
I strongly believe that you're confusing the goal with the outcome in a very important sense.
For the overwhelming majority of human history, and in many parts of the globe, cruelty to animals was believed to be no big deal at all. The average person happily threw stones at cats or watched dog fights, and if you used enjoyment of the same as a heuristic to root out psychopathy, you'd find it to be incredibly useless.
However, when a society has moved in the direction of considering such acts morally reprehensible and simply Not Done by good upstanding folk, is it any surprise that those who still do it aren't "good upstanding folk"? They're clearly abnormal in some regard, since they are either too impulsive or too dumb to consider the consequences of their action, and both strongly correlate with other things we consider bad like cruelty towards humans.
If you declare shaving your head to be a clear sign of Nazism and demand all desist, then many people who would otherwise have shaved theirs don't any more, and voila, finding a skinhead is close to proof of NatSoc sympathies.
The majority of humans start out inclined to be at least a little cruel towards animals, and in most places, they're socialized out of it, and those who persist have something wrong with them. That does not necessarily mean that it's the cruelty to animals that causes psychopathy or sociopathy, for much the same reason that, protestations of ardent vegans aside, the typical meat eater isn't particularly more likely to be a sadistic serial killer.
On a more personal note, I love dogs and find cruelty towards them abhorrent, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it should be banned. I get no pleasure out of tormenting most creatures, and the closest I ever get is when, after concussing but not outright killing a mosquito, I've occasionally in the past torn off its wings and watched it suffer with mild smugness. Or perhaps when I make sure the tics I occasionally pick off my dog die just a little more painfully (do they even feel pain? Doesn't particularly matter) than they could have.
I invite anyone and everyone to demonstrate how I've been less than upstanding in my interpersonal relations or as a citizen, regardless of whatever heterodox views I hold.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link