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 -
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