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 -
Because once again HE said it was evil. Thus HE has some definition of evil. Whether I have one or not doesn't matter. I am asking HIM to tell me about his definition of evil. I am really confused about how you seem not to get this point.
As to the rest, again my point is I think if you asked the average person if supporting pedophilia was morally similar to being against people being killed I think most would not equate those two views.
I am not making any argument about whether his position is right or wrong. I am saying I can't currently understand it, and asking him to explain. Which he has said he cannot do as it is just something he feels. I accept that as a coherent answer.
You always seem to be reading these as weird gotchas or that I am trying to prove people wrong. Simply read my posts and assume I am trying to understand here and things will make a lot more sense. I don't care if he is right or wrong, I care somewhat about trying to understand a mindset I do not currently understand. I like @Walterodim and think he is an excellent poster. I think his position is out of step with most people, but that is nothing new here on the Motte, and it is possible I am wrong about that.
He said that he thought it was evil. You asked him to show why it was "evil in and of itself", which is different than simply saying that he thinks it's evil. That's a question at the level of essences.
I'm missing anything about what it means for something to be "morally defensible", and whether or not that involves concepts like being rationally defensible, determinable, etc.
I don't really care either. I care whether or not you're actually acting consistently with your professed meta-ethical beliefs or whether they're just strategically-claimed.
In and of itself within his framework. And he could have answered no. Its not an accusation, its an exploration. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. But I can't know unless I ask.
There are a couple of issues here, one is that you think my philosophical underpinnings come in to play in surface level questions. Most of my surface level positions are entirely normie, even if my reasonings are not. You can't actually determine if i am holding my beliefs honestly or not from the vast majority of the questions I ask because I simply use the mundane, normal language I use talking to anyone. I am not constructing my questions, as if I am in an academic setting.
And secondly, why would it matter? Whatever the intentions behind my beliefs the question, it stands or falls on its own. If I accuse someone of lying, or have questions about their beliefs, then my meta-ethical beliefs have no impact on the truth of my accusation or the usefulness of the question. Play the ball not the man so to speak.
I'll reiterate again, the vast majority of people (including me, and it seems Walterodim) are not always constructing every single question, discussion or stance based upon first principles. I am certain some of my positions are inconsistent because of that. I have not interrogated every single one. So that they are inconsistent would not be evidence of whether I hold my positions strategically or not. Just that I like most people (as near as I can tell) are not perfect reasoning machines.
What exactly are you hoping to achieve?
This sentence doesn't make sense, though. Like, what does it mean?
I'm missing anything about what it means for something to be "morally defensible", and whether or not that involves concepts like being rationally defensible, determinable, etc.
As I wrote:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link