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 -
If you've ever come across someone on the Effective Altruism forum or ACX comments section who cares a lot about wild animal/insect welfare, you might have wondered if they'd thought things through.
Well, you'd be right.
Here we have the story of a bright-eyed young effective altruist who spent the better part of a year permitting a breeding colony of carpet moths to live in her apartment because she was concerned about the ethical implications of exterminating them.
I'll be honest. My first reaction was of sneering contempt. Animal welfare is IMO the most counterproductive idea that gets serious traction in rationalist spaces, so there is a good bit of schadenfreude from seeing, "I never thought the bugs would eat MY utility," out in the wild.
Still, I don't know anything about this person other than that she lives in a London flat and works for an EA organization (80,000 hours). I am reminded of that XKCD where even the most obvious facts are learned by someone for the first time thousands of times a day. Maybe Europe really is a commieblock hellscape where man lives entirely divorced from nature, where supposedly well-informed people can enter their late 20s without an intuitive understanding of the exponential growth of pest biomass. I remember well the time as a wee lad I saw an entire summer's growth of backyard tomato plants devoured in a week by 2 or 3 hornworms. Not everyone grows up with such a visceral demonstration of what civilization is up against.
Maybe these people really do need to touch grass.
If you come at the King, you best not miss. Phrase different: Them boots ain't fit you.
I accept media animal welfare concerns in society because they are a good signally of generalized empathy. I believe it's safe to assert that anybody within the larger bounds of "normally functioning emotions" would be distraught to see a cat, dog, horse, other common domesticated animal be seriously intentionally hurt. And that's a good thing. It's a great signal that you would get really upset if a human (esp. a child) was similarly victimized. I draw the line at any sort of jail time for animal welfare offenses (perhaps with some exceptions around truly egregious cases that point to latent violent impulses).
The other line I draw, however, is any discussion of "honoring" animals or trying to devote serious financial resources to attempting to stop x species from dying. To me, this is a path to eugenics.
If you don't believe human beings are special, sacred, and/or divinely appointed in the universe, then I can't see how you stop yourself from taking these EA ideas to the extreme and eventually spouting things like "well, maybe we shouldn't breed as much so that kangaroos won't feel encroached" ... or something. If humans aren't a distinct class, does it not stand to that (satanic) reasoning that we ought to try equitably distribute resources and rights with our inhuman brothers and sisters? I don't know how this circle gets squared without the starting axiom of "humans are different, better, and more important than all other species. period"
So, again, if you're a cat person who desk-flips when you see a video online of kids terrorizing them - I'm with you and I agree.
If you think that we shouldn't build more hydropower because it might delete a turtle population - you're a killer.
I'm nitpicking, but why the use of the word Satanic? Do you mean the actual church of satan, or fictional inverse-christianity? It's just baffling phrasing to me; we're not touched-by-an-angel nominal christian boomers around here.
I'll admit I may have written my comment with a little but of antsy in my pantsy. I'm only human, after all.
In general, if I ever throw out "Satanic," one can simply substitute in "perverse" or "inverted." It's not about being literally Of The Devil (i.e. the touched-by-an-angel christian boomer concept), it's about a sort of self-defeating backwards logic that also profoundly damages things around it. To put it in another context, I'd argue that the hardcore transcult logic goes along the lines of "we need to protect the children from possible emotional discomfort over all things. If this results in permanent physical disfigurement and sterilization, we will have accomplished our goal"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link