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 -
I'd rather have a 50% of being sexually abused as a child than counterfactually not exist, frankly. I think most people, if they were honest, would agree. This makes banning gays from having assisted-reproduction children ... extremely stupid, imo, and the morality that leads you to believe it must be prevented extremely suspect. (Its' still fine to think gays are evil or whatever, that can coexist)
He said "most of the assisted reproduction", it doesn't specify that it should be banned for gay people. Personally I think it should be banned for everyone.
Once in a while, when we talk, you end up saying something like "how do you not realize I'n far-right". This is how. I don't see how there's anything morally suspect about wanting to stop the fertility industry.
I said 'most' , to allow for assistance to the soldier who'd had his cock blown off but still wants kids with his wife. It should be rare enough to avoid the industrialization of reproduction. Only if he's still alive. 'Harvesting' sperm from the dead is creepy, but I understand the motivation.
Homosexuals should be banned from assisted reproduction, if they want children they should make them themselves like the rest of us. Although I'd prefer they didn't especially those invested in the ideology of alphabetism. I don't think they should adopt either. Orphanages would be better.
More options
Context Copy link
Well you know what they say, the future belongs to those who show up. But you do you.
Do you have a galaxy-brained take on curious straight's true allegiance? He may be a progressive heretic in far right clothing, but I'm sure his progressive friends would think he's far right, and that's good enough for me.
Sure, but even if you're right, there are certain points past which I don't recognize the result as "having shown up". For example I sympathize with DaseIndustries Transhumanists more than I do with Bay Area Rat Transhumanists, but both are so distant from me that I can't see myself having a direct stake in either one of them winning.
But none off that matters, as the question was about morality, and this is not a moral argument.
Yeah my personal theory about how he showed up here was that some California Bluehair called him a racist, and he said "Very well... I see that I do not belong here... I shall go live... with the racsists!"
You can have him, but I don't want his views associated with me. They're like someone deliberately set out to miss the point.
That is the weirdness of such arguments. What will showing up prove? That you were morally right, that you have retroactively won in a hypothetical future none of us will know? It strikes me as the inverse of : 'in the past, we all lived in a communist pacifist matriarchical cooperative', but even less subject to contrary evidence. Ownership of the past and future need not concern us. The future is a foreign country.
Neither does the Bluehair. Are you going to deny him his identity and his far right card, unless he goes trad? If you object to his characterization of himself on definitional grounds, that's one thing, but if you're just gatekeeping and trying to up the social pressure as a political act, I must object under freedom of association.
As far as I'm concerned, he can always tag along on the road to Bremen, where we shall sing for our bread.
Doesn't that imply that the Nazis were only wrong because they lost? If we're full-nihilist fair enough, but then it's obvious we're using completely different and irreconcilable moral frameworks, and arguing over any specific case isn't going to be productive.
Well, then let's just get him to identify as a moderate classical liberal (without changing anything about his actual views), or whatever it is you consider yourself to be, and then like I said you can have him, and everyone will be happy.
Huh? Freedom of association means I get to gatekeep him out.
Yes, in showing up ideology, goebbels was only wrong because he wiped out his family. I do not think highly of that kind of argument, I prefer moral ones. I'm arguing against the other times you used it, like a week ago.
The thing is, by some definition, like the Bluehair's, I'm far right too. I'd probably describe myself to her that way if she pressed. Labels like that are just helpful indications for others, they're not some badge of honour The Party can remove to maintain ideological purity.
I'd very much appreciate it if more people could identify as some flavour of centrist, who can pick and choose correct arguments on a case-by-case basis. But the bluehair doesn't recognize that, it's either with her or against her - and I interpret your gatekeeping (and Hlynka's more extreme no-one-is-a-right-winger-but-me antics) as a similar stance.
I see it this way: certain ideologies (the woke, religious sects, and now apparently the far right), don't want their adherents to associate with the non-pure, and that goes against freedom of association. The gates in an open society should be permanently open, and let anyone in or out. All arguments are free under a creative commons license and not to be bundled together in conflicting exclusive ideologies. So if he wants to be a far right utilitarian, let him.
And are you a follower of the "showing up ideology"? Because I'm not particularly interested in hearing your interpretation of other people's ideologies.
Right, but you're not telling me I should follow your ideas, because we both disagree with the Bluehair, which is what I feel CA's constant reminders that he's one of us fellow
kidsright wingers, is aimed to do.I'm either misunderstanding you or vehemently disagreeing. No, I don't think Black Hebrew Israelites should be free to identify as Jews. If any particular person wants to leave a group, that's his right, if any other group doesn't want to have him, that's their right.
Feel free to disagree, but then you're not for freedom of association.
You’re the one who claims it has any validity, so I expect you to defend it when I point out a case where you act contrary to it (fertilization).
“You believe X is true. A straightforward understanding of X implies Y. Y results in Z. You deny Z is true. Therefore, X is false.” Is a valid argument. You can’t just dismiss my reasoning on the grounds that I don’t believe the terms. Whole classes of arguments, like ad absurdum, would disappear.
I didn’t see him do that here. It was just you reminding him that he’s not a real right-winger because of his utilitarian-like reasoning. It looks like ideologically directed social pressure: ‘you can’t sit with us unless you believe this and that’. I don’t recognize that as a legitimate way of changing someone’s mind.
And really, what is he, if he's not a right-winger? Clearly he's not a progressive (unless he's lying, that's a different problem). So, if he doesn't want to become a groupless and stateless reject and eat alone every meal, he has to acquiesce to your demands of ideological conformity.
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
More options
Context Copy link
I literally said "it's still fine to think gays are evil" in the next sentence, man, I'm not being subtle here. The point is even then, the right response isn't "prevent harm".
Right, and I think whatever the harm is, it's better to have more people who can experience things (and more rolls of the dice for higher-quality people, etc)
Well, but that's my point. You're acting like a progressive's parody of a conservative.
Not everyone goes by a utilitarian "minimize harm" morality. Turning reproduction into an industry is an evil in itself, one of the greatest ones that are out there, in my opinion.
EDIT: Sorry I must have missed this one:
I mean, you are still using a utilitarian cost-benefit analysis. You're saying it's worth to roll the dice on the harm, because the expected benefits are greater. My point is that industrializing a fundamental human experience like birth is already wrong in itself, and arguing in favor of it with "we might get a few more von Neumans" doesn't work on a fundamental level.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link