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 -
Yeah, I'd be fine with it. I have, in fact, argued in venues where I'm on the opposite side of the prevailing mood. I wouldn't say I feel welcomed, but my conviction on the matter is quite strong and I think my positions win on the merits. To wit:
I have no problem biting the bullet on that and saying that I agree that some problems are best solved by killing and we only disagree about the right targets. From there, I'm comfortable proceeding with the reasons that I think it is qualitatively different to execute men that have been tried by a jury of their peers and convicted of murdering a half dozen children than to fantasize about vigilante justice. I expect that some people will disagree. I even expect that some would do so passionately! This does not much dissuade me. I think that my actual arguments and the specifics of the individuals involved serve to clarify that claims of bloodthirstiness are just not correct.
I'll again bite the bullet and say that I think this is a fine argument tactic. If someone doesn't want to defend legal firearms ownership for convicted child rapists, then we're getting somewhere! They're agreeing that there are constraints to their position, that it's not categorical. Likewise, if someone that is generally against the death penalty agrees with me that maybe it's bad to offer categorical commutations for the worst people you've ever heard of, well, we're getting somewhere! Alternatively, they can bite the bullet and say that their only real problem with Biden's decision is that he didn't extend the same mercy to the remaining three, we are at least clarifying where we all stand. I am not actually willing to extend a friendly welcome to that position, but it exists and people can argue for it if they wish.
To return to your original objection:
The point is that the United States President just did something that I consider morally abhorrent as a discretionary executive action. This raises the salience of the issue and highlights special cases of it. Regardless of where someone settles on death penalty policy questions, this action should absolutely merit discussion. If you think I'm the wrong person to bring it up because I'm going to say that I'm pissed off and the people doing this are evil, I just disagree.
Why not? It is basically the stance of the Catholic Church. Why can't you be friendly to people who have opposing views to you (or is it just this specific view for some reason)? That's a real question, as that's the more interesting part in all this in my view. I am friends with people who believe all abortion should be outlawed AND people who think it is the woman's choice. And yes with both supporters and opposers of the death penalty. Why shouldn't we extend a friendly welcome to both? They are both pursuing what they think to be best morally. And without access to the underlying moral logic of the universe, I can't tell either one of them for certain they are right or wrong.
If it was proven to you tomorrow that the death penalty definitively increases the evil in the world and you now opposed it would you then be unable to be friendly to people who held your previous position?
I'm friends with many people that I disagree with, including on this topic. I wrote that I'm not willing to extend a friendly welcome to the position, and I stick by that. As covered, I don't think it's a simple difference, but one of the worst, most immoral positions that is within the realm of normal beliefs in the United States. I'm fine with being friendly with people that hold very bad positions, but I am not inclined to dress up my opinion of the position in niceties. My reaction to is comparable to my reaction to someone saying that minor-attracted people should be allowed to satisfy their urges or that it's actually fine to rob someone if they have more money than you. I'm capable of having the discussion, but my reaction is that these positions really are just evil and need to be defeated.
So the idea that any killing is wrong is one you equate with thinking pedophilia is ok? That seems wildly skewed. I'm not a Christian let alone a Catholic but I think the position that killing is wrong is definitely morally defensible certainly an order of magnitude more than the idea that pedophilia is ok.
Why do you think it is so evil to not want to kill people? I can certainly understand from a utilitarian perspective that you might argue the benefits outweigh the costs for certain people, or that executing people might be the lesser of two evils, but why is not wanting to do it literally evil in and of itself?
Generally I find your views very understandable (even if I don't always agree with them) but I am honestly somewhat surprised and confused that you hold such an absolute position on this that NOT wanting to kill people is itself evil.
But not as, like, a rational, 'seeking Truth' sense of "morally defensible", right? I had thought that somewhere between here and here we shed the concept that moral concepts were rationally defensible, determinable, etc. in some sort of objective way, and it was instead just people's emotions/feelings/vibes. So when you ask:
you're actually asking, from your meta-ethical perspective, something like, "Why is three green?" You have completely hidden first principles that make your question incoherent and impossible to answer. That really undercuts what I think is an implied argument from incredulity, where one asks what is merely a difficult question from a position of first-impression skepticism, being open to a plausible answer and interpreting a lack of a complete and convincing answer as evidence against the position. No, your prior meta-ethical position is such that this question is impossible to answer, either for or against, because you actually think (when pressed) that your own question is an incoherent one. You're not asking it to rationally grow closer to some truth of the matter.
...or have you changed your mind, and you now think that there is some sort of concept of "evil in and of itself"? If so, what would that concept be?
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