site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   26562 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 3, 2024

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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I wasn't characterizing your view, but what follows from your argument if it is valid. It seems to me that the argument you put forward to support your view is an equally strong argument for a view you oppose.

That is itself a very good sign you have misunderstood what I intended to convey as my argument and belief.

That might on me, I might not have communicated it well.

As a matter of fact, I think that normalizing premarital sex is a grave social problem.

I do not particularly share that belief. I don't think premarital sex is totally without issue, but I think it's not inherently bad, the issues with it are serious but not civilization ending. And moreover, it's anyway way past anything that's remotely likely to change.

As far as I know, no society has ever embraced the following three norms simultaneously and survived

Yeah, but no society has ever had the semiconductor and ubiquitous satellite before either. Or streaming TV or easy international travel. An argument from precedent is not terribly meaningful in a society that's consistently creating totally novel things (some of which are generally good, some of which are generally bad and some of which are mixed).

I'm definitely not advocating that, but I am saying the empirical evidence for the maladaptivity of (1), (2), and (3) is stronger.

I don't even remotely agree that this is a valid way to reason about society. It's a form of just-so reasoning that can be concocted post-hoc to support or oppose any position.

[ I'm also not even sure that "maladaptivity" is even the right measure. There are a lot of things that are maladaptive that we nevertheless believe are morally proper or even morally obligatory. Similarly there are many things that are adaptive that we believe are morally wrong or even forbidden. Given the enormous productive surplus of modern industry, humanity has the freedom not to be fitness-maxing at full tilt all the time in a way that previous societies or other species do not. ]

In light of that, what argument would you make against prohibiting (1), (2), and (3) in media depictions, that does not contradict your original argument on CSAM?

  1. A large supermajority believes that sexual urges towards 5 year olds is fundamentally morally abhorrent
  2. No such contingent is even remotely there on (1), (2) or (3). In fact, none of those can even claim a bare majority against them

You can try to make this into a more complicated argument if you want. I feel no need to go any further than

In light of that, what argument would you make against prohibiting (1), (2), and (3) in media depictions, that does not contradict your original argument on CSAM?

  • A large supermajority believes that sexual urges towards 5 year olds is fundamentally morally abhorrent
  • No such contingent is even remotely there on (1), (2) or (3). In fact, none of those can even claim a bare majority against them

As I reported before, a supermajority of married women disapproved of premarital sex in the 1960's. Moreover a supermajority of adults in the US (75% of those who expressed an opinion) believed premarital sex was wrong as late as 1969 [source]. By your argument, that I quoted above, slavery was moral until 300 years ago; premarital sex was wrong until 60 years ago, and gay marriage was wrong until 10 years ago. I assume you believe, however, that the abolition of slavery (e.g.), which changed the supermajority consensus, was a good thing. If so, then there must be some consideration aside from the majority opinion that informs morality. My question is, in your view, what is it, and how does it apply to CSAM in a way that it does not apply to, say, the normalization of premarital sex in media?

The difference is, I don't believe we are ever again going to see a world where premarital sex as taboo as sex with a 5 year old.

If you want to agitate for it, go for it.

By your argument, that I quoted above, slavery was moral until 300 years ago

This is a fairly common, silly argument.

To clarify, I (a person living in 2024) believe slavery is wrong whether it happened in 1800 or 2000. Some other entity (perhaps, as you suggest, a person living in 1800) did not believe slavery was wrong. That person is not me and I am not them.

@NelsonRushton: By your argument, that I quoted above, slavery was moral until 300 years ago

@anon_: This is a fairly common, silly argument.

The argument you are calling silly is your previously stated argument on the topic of CSAM (supermajority, etc. etc.).

What I asked for is your argument that the abolition of slavery was a moral improvement. I'm now asking for the second time. Whatever argument that is, it will have to prove that majorities don't decide morality, which will contradict your argument for the prohibition CSAM.

What's silly is the idea that my judgment today of has to be based on what people thought in a different century.

What I asked for is your argument that the abolition of slavery was a moral improvement.

The same reason -- it's a near universal truth.

Whatever argument that is, it will have to prove that majorities don't decide morality

They do. And the majority now has decided that slavery was pretty awful.

The fact that majorities in the past thought otherwise doesn't itself (without more) mean anything to my judgment today.

which will contradict your argument for the prohibition CSAM.

This is a strange hill to want to fight for.

What's silly is the idea that my judgment today of has to be based on what people thought in a different century... They [majorities] do [decide morality]. And the majority now has decided that slavery was pretty awful.

Let me see if I understand correctly. Do you affirm the following?

  • Proposition A: Slavery was immoral in 1700, because a majority of people in 2023 believe it was, regardless of what a majority of people in 1700 thought.

If so, why is that true but not this:

  • Proposition B: Slavery is morally permissible in 2023, because a majority of people in 1700 believed it is, regardless of what a majority of people in 2023 think.

For example, is it because 2023 comes after 1700? Or because we are having the conversation in 2023? Or for some other reason?

Yes, A because I live in 2024.

Consider also:

C — Fire is the product of combustion of materials with oxygen in both 1700 and 2024. I know this because there is a near universal consensus on the matter in 2024.

D — Fire is due to the liberation of phlogiston. People in 1700 know this because there is a near universal consensus on the matter in 1700.

Do you believe in the symmetry of C/D? Or do you believe 300 years ago fire really was phlogiston?

Maybe in the future people will have a different view on fire or whatever else. That’s unknown-able to us. They are welcome to it. And anyone can got and promote that view and, if it takes hold, good for them!

Do you believe in the symmetry of C/D? Or do you believe 300 years ago fire really was phlogiston?

I believe that combustion consumes oxygen as opposed to liberating phlogiston. I assume you do too. The next question is why this is true. Do you believe that this is true because (1) a majority of people in 2023 believe it is true, or because (2) regardless of what a majority of people believe, combustion actually consumes oxygen as opposed to liberating phlogiston?

Do you believe that this is true because (1) a majority of people in 2023 believe it is true, or because (2) regardless of what a majority of people believe, combustion actually consumes oxygen as opposed to liberating phlogiston?

This question has two very different parsings:

  • A Do (you believe this is true) because ...
  • B Do you believe (this is true because ...)

I think this is probably the root of the issue, the difference between epistemic and causal modes of thinking.

My point is purely epistemic -- if everyone believes something and a small bunch of people don't, they are very usually wrong. Of course, in retrospect knowing what we know now, one can find a contrarian in the past to our liking. So it does happen, it's just that prospectively, for every such instance there are far more where they're just plain nuts. For every John Brown there's a thousand Ted Kaczynskis, so do the math.

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats