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 -
...but you were specifically trying to consider the opposite of that. This is why it is so confusing. This is the bit
before the "[I do not] have to agree they are correct" bit. Specifically that they don't believe that religiously motivated murder is wrong. So, you think that they are not correct about what?!
Or now, when you say:
What does "better" have to do with "correct"? What truth value... or what thing... or where is the concept that you are talking about?
Remember we are talking about a subset of Christians in Northern Ireland vs Christians in the current US where sectarian conflict between Christian denomination is currently not a real live issue.
So my point is that if you make that a live issue, then there is a chance that the divisions will re-occur. So MOST Christians do not approve of murder, but if you change the conditions that can change as it did in Northern Ireland, and did in the 30 years war.
I think my point stands that you keep trying to zoom into small sections of the conversation. Without going through each section and seeing what my replies are in response to. In one place we are talking about most Christians in the context of the US in another we are talking about a sub set of Christians in Northern Ireland. Those sections won't make sense outside of the context of the specific point in the conversation they happen in.
When I say better or more correct without giving you a comparator the only thing I can be comparing it to is my own beliefs. That is the default, that I think you are not quite getting.
In order to hold my moral beliefs, it must be true that I think those beliefs are somehow "better" than others. It doesn't matter on what axis "better" means in this context, just that if I didn't think that I would not hold my current beliefs but the other set of beliefs that I felt were "better". It is axiomatic that we each feel the beliefs we hold and believe are "better" or "superior" or "truer" than all the others, because if we didn't we would be holding those other beliefs instead. How we each make that determination is largely illegible both to us and the outside world because it isn't.... all together now...rational. So when I say, "just because I understand they think their beliefs are moral, I do not have to agree they are correct (compared to my own beliefs). Whether they think murder is right or wrong I do not have to agree with them just because I understand they think they are being moral. This is a general point, that applies to murder, child mutilation, or kidnap, and whatever side of the fence the person or group I am comparing against falls.
All you need to take away is that I am not making implications about there being some standard morality I comparing to, I am either comparing it to my own morality (if I don't specify) or to some specific set of moral beliefs I think some other group holds, which I will specify. You don't need to make assumptions, outside of the one where when someone says something they are saying it on behalf of themselves unless they tell you otherwise. If I say I think France is better than Poland, that is on my own criteria, if I say the French think France is better than Poland, then I am telling you what I think someone else thinks. You don't have to try and read into that, that I am trying to smuggle in some kind of objective truth that France is better than Poland, for I am not. I have no access to objective truth and I do not claim to have such.
So all you have to do when you read my posts, is avoid drawing an implication that you think is there but does not exist.
I'm definitely siding more and more with ZRslashRIFLE that I'm going to have to just interpret your statements in terms of vibes. When you say that something is "correct" or "not correct", you just mean that you like it or don't like it. Not that it's like... "correct" or "not correct" as those words would be used in any other context. When you say that you think murdering people for religious reasons is moral/immoral, you mean, "According to my meta-ethical position, the moral truth of whether murdering people for religious reasons is wrong for me is irrelevant. Instead, I'm only pointing out that I think it would be wrong by THEIR worldview."
I will try to update when reading your comments in the future. I think this new language is going to be wildly difficult to remember.
But if I were to try one last time...
I really think it does. Because best as I can tell, when you say "X is better", at this point, I guess it just means, "I like X more," and there are no more implications whatsoever. This is especially problematic, because you're using "better" as the sole explanation of "correct/not correct", meaning there are two stages of hidden meaning when you say that something is correct/not correct. The first stage is that you think it is just "better", not really "correct" or "not correct" in the sense of having a truth value. The second stage is that you think "better" is just "I like it". Meaning that when you say, in the future, that something is "correct" or "not correct", I pretty much have to filter it twice to mean "I like it" or "I don't like it". It honestly is no wonder why this theoretical haranguing leads to many of the excesses of wokeism; it really does make it seem like statements that appear at first glance to have truth value are really just expressions of personal feelings/emotions.
It's not about like, which I have tried to explain repeatedly. My position is straightforward and the way most people in the world act as far as I can tell. It doesn't matter what I like, or don't like. I don't have a conscious choice.
As another point I am not actually a progressive and would certainly not identify as woke, and my point is that almost everyone has their morality determined this way, whether woke, conservative, fascist or communist.
Donald Trump and Joe Biden, AOC and MTG, Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Princess Diana, Bob the Builder, the Pope, etc. etc. The way I am describing how my morality exists is as far as I can tell how about 95% of the worlds population operate.
They internalize their moral code, and judge things against that. When Bob the Christian says murder is wrong and Christianity is better than Islam, he isn't having a complex conscious philosophical debate with himself as to what he means by better or wrong. He uses the terms as they mean in every day English. If you ask him what he means by better, he may tell you that the Bible is true and that the Quran is false, but that is a rationalization, because he can't know that for sure, he has just absorbed his belief system.
I think perhaps the reason you are struggling with this, is exactly the issue you mention in your last line. Emotions and feelings ARE I think more important than truth when it comes to human interaction and morality. And that is how most people operate, and how we intuitively understand that most people operate. If you are trying to break down things into logical segments when it comes to this, well you've already missed the point. You don't have to do any gymnastics, just read the sentence as you would when talking to someone in the street.
In general, when a Philadelphian tells you the Eagles are better than the Cowboys, you don't have to try and work out what he means by better. He isn't comparing their win/loss records and Super Bowl wins. You don't need to look for any deeper logical meaning, just engage at surface level for that is the level at which he means it. That the Eagles are his hometown team and Eagles fans hate the Cowboys. That's it. If you want to call that vibes based, then sure go ahead, but you should at least recognize that if you don't operate that way, that you are the outlier. And when he comes across a Cowboys fan on the train and they start debating which is better, that there is no objective answer, that they will settle upon.
It sounds like you are making everything way too complicated for your own good.
I don't think I'm making anything too complicated. I'm simply trying to find out if there is any room for rational argumentation on your view of the moral world, where we can say that certain statements have truth value... or whether it's all vibes-based. I think this last comment is by far the most clear embrace of the vibes-based view of the world. Whereas before, it was really hidden in language that seemed to imply other things.
And sure, I understand that you think that everyone else is just purely operating in a vibes-based way, too. That was the essence of what ZRslashRIFLE said, only much more compactly. I get that idea. I just sort of wish you had said that twenty comments ago, at least no later than when I linked to him. And I really hope you won't be so loose with your language in the future.
I was clear. I would suggest you simply read what is said and not make assumptions about underlying motivations as you did. That will almost always lead you astray.
If the only question left is how clear your early statements were, perhaps we could agree to put it up to a poll? You can even choose some venue other than TheMotte, so that we can get more normie opinions rather than folks who 'make everything way too complicated for their own good'. But especially if we do run the poll at TheMotte, I would suggest we use a different context, just to put a slight barrier in front of people who might recognize the original. Something like:
Any modifications you would propose?
I have no interest in that whatsoever. And I think the fact that you are proposing it, still shows you are struggling to even understand the basics of my position. I'd suggest the inferential distance is too great and further effort expended is going to be a waste, so I will exit the conversation here.
I clearly understand more than the basics of your position... I just had to drag it out of you. The only thing left in question is the clarity of your exposition. If you would like to continue having people misunderstand you, that is a problem of your own making. If you'd like to see if there are ways that you can be more clear, I am willing to help. I can also jump in threads in the future and try to head off any misconceptions that other Mottizans might have about your comments. Whatever it takes to help everyone understand each other better.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link