site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   22128 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 30, 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.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That said, it’s quite puzzling to me from a rationality and decision-theoretic framework to incorporate these kinds of predicted value-shifts into your views. For example, imagine I anticipate becoming significantly wealthier next year, and I observe that previously when I’ve become wealthier my views on tax policy have become more libertarian. What’s the rational move here? Should I try to fight against this anticipated value shift? Should I begin incorporating it now? Should I say what will be will be, and just wait for it to happen? Should I actively try to avoid becoming wealthier because that will predictably compromise my values?

Isn't this the problem that Rawls' Veil of Ignorance is designed to solve?

Given, that is normally offered to justify a socialist solution to problems. The Veil of Ignorance is offered to the rich man to say, imagine if you were poor, wouldn't you prefer a socialist system?

But there's nothing in the mechanics of the Veil of Ignorance that prevents it from being used the opposite way: imagine you were rich, would you dislike any of the redistributive policies you currently advocate for?

Given, it suffers from the flaw of many philosophical tools, in that it relies on "then think really hard about it" as the final step. But it's the clear solution to the value shifts: try to imagine a system of values that would appeal to you regardless of your position.

But there's nothing in the mechanics of the Veil of Ignorance that prevents it from being used the opposite way: imagine you were rich, would you dislike any of the redistributive policies you currently advocate for?

I don't at all agree with Rawls, but I think the point is that there are far fewer rich than poor.

But there's nothing in the mechanics of the Veil of Ignorance that prevents it from being used the opposite way: imagine you were rich, would you dislike any of the redistributive policies you currently advocate for?

There is, the mechanic is "would you hate being poor in a dog-eat-dog world more than you'd hate being taxed a lot as a rich man?".

@anon_

Sure, but that's just a percentage thing, easily disposed of. Rawls would tell you that some degree of redistribution is optimal, but it can still justify Capitalism on a "more goods produced" logic, and set the level of redistribution to maximize everyone's happiness. That's a logic that holds from behind a veil of ignorance. What one shouldn't do within Rawls' paradigm is undertake policies that are not overall utility-maximizing.

Nor is mere quantity of poor and rich people enough to make anything justifiable. Neutral between whether I am the one or the other, I can still feel that there is some level of "fans harassing famous person" that isn't morally correct, for example.

The kind of values shift I have in mind is one that is indifferent to one's position, i.e., not just filling in the variable according to one's position within it. For example, imagine you have a choice of three college courses you can take: one on libertarianism, one on Marxism, and one on library research. The first two are probably going to be more interesting, but you're also aware that they're taught by brilliant scholars of the relevant political persuasion, and you'll be acquainted with relevant rationally persuasive evidence in support of this position. Consequently, you know that if you take the libertarianism course, you'll come away more libertarian, if you take the Marxist course you'll come away more Marxist, and if you take the library research course you'll come away knowing more about libraries. Assuming the first two courses would indeed involve a values transition, under what circumstances might it be rational to undergo it?

If you really knew in advance that the courses contain rationally persuasive evidence for X, you should immediately believe X even without taking the courses based on your knowledge that the rationally persuasive evidence exists.

I doubt that you know that the courses contain rationally persuasive evidence for X. What you do know is that after taking such courses, you feel that you have been rationally persuaded. But being irrationally persuaded feels like being rationally persuaded.

On the off-chance you aren't aware of this already, a similar thought experiment is discussed in Parfit's "Reasons and Persons" and Korsgaard's "Self-Constitution".

I'm not sure it's ever rational to choose which values you will be inculcated in and then forget all about the choice. Ie if you take the course on Marxism, you should later realize that fact and keep it in mind when making value judgments.

Nor am I sure such a thing is entirely possible. I know I spent years of my life trying to shop for a religion that would inculcate values that I liked, only to realize that it was impossible to really believe in a religion learned under those circumstances.

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