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 -
Telling a knowable lie when you have a professional responsibility to speak truthfully is evil.
The problem with the way you've phrased it is, well, who defines responsibilities? Police states always say everyone has a responsibility to report dissent; is lying to cover dissidents or the persecuted evil? But if the responsibilities set in law and by dominant organisations can be void, then who decides? You? But then your statement reduces to "[I think] telling a knowable lie when I think you were morally obliged to tell the truth is evil". Well, no shit doing the opposite of what's morally obligatory is evil. That's practically vacuous.
In this particular case there are enough hypocrisies and contradictions that the issues with the full version of this statement don't really engage, but come on, man, that was a soundbite extraordinaire.
That sounds like a more convoluted way of saying "have a professional responsibility to speak truthfully", otherwise where are you getting the idea anyone should avoid being hypocritical and contradictory?
My point here is that these are basically the same people promulgating and violating the responsibility, so they're in a sense estopped from raising the defence of "that responsibility is fake and void"; they could have chosen not to define that responsibility in that way.
To more directly answer your question, though, I think there's at least an imperfect Kantian duty to do so and plausibly a perfect one (if everyone's a hypocrite about the same thing, the denunciations can be said to cease to have meaning).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link