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 -
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:
Just the surface level meaning. Separating from the example (death penalty) and trying to determine if the belief holds under all circumstances. In and of itself. Independent of whether we are killing good or bad people.Likewise anything can be morally defensible, but how would he defend it. I could ask Hitler how killing Jews is morally defensible and how he answers is useful information. I'm not asking him to defend it in my moral terms because how would he even know how to start?
And why are you interested in proving that I hold my values strategically? I've told you I don't, and for a good faith interlocutor that should be enough. There's no benefit to me hiding my beliefs on an anonymous forum. I'm not a politician, there is nothing for me to recruit for. I just like arguing on the internet.
This doesn't make sense, though. It would be like saying, "Let's separate ourselves from this example of a black swan and try to determine if the belief 'swans are white' holds under all circumstances."
I don't think that's what you meant it to mean. Let's just do a word swap and see if it makes sense.
Yeah, I don't think that makes sense.
That doesn't really tell me anything about what it means for something to be "morally defensible". Moreover, you suggested that some things were more or less morally defensible. What does this mean? How does it work?
If people had magic labels on them that properly identified whether they were good faith or bad faith interlocutors, then I wouldn't have to wonder. But unfortunately, they don't. So, the best that we can do is keep an eye on what they say and notice whether they're engaging in bad faith behaviors. Obviously, both categories are going to just say that they don't hold their claims strategically, so that's essentially worthless information.
It literally makes perfect sense in your example! Abstracted from the current example in a vaccuum does he believe that anyone who is against all killing is evil. That the stance in and of itself divorced from context is evil. And I think the answer appears to be yes.
For the rest, here we are supposed to extend charity. Its the whole point of the space. You still haven't answered why i would be misrepresenting the philosophical underpinnings of my world view that only gets brought up when someone asks me about them, generally. There is nothing to gain from it.
Last time, you said "separated from". This is better.
I still don't think the word swap makes sense, because I don't think that's what you meant.
I still don't know what you think it means for something to be "morally defensible". Moreover, you suggested that some things were more or less morally defensible. What does this mean? How does it work?
You hadn't asked. But there is clearly something to gain from it. You have difficulty defending other metaphysical positions without retreating into meta-ethical relativism, so you do so strategically. Of course, you don't really believe it, deep down, as evidenced by how you engage with regular moral topics, so you just switch right back when you talk about object-level morality. You gain the ability to feel like you're winning arguments, but you struggle mightily when the disconnect is pointed out.
Don't you have some positions that are easier to defend than others? Some that require more work to justify than others? Thats it, thats all I mean.
I still think you spend too much time trying to nit pick minutae rather than simply engaging with the surface level. You don't have to interrogate the differences between abstracted from or separated from, when the gist is clear (which it must be since your rephrase got it perfectly, even if you didn't understand why i was asking that).
Finally, i think my record over years under the same name, here and prior to the move is enough to judge I am operating in good faith. I am sure some of my positions are inconsistent, as I mentioned before. But that doesn't mean I am lying, any more than the old atheist attack on Christians, that they don't really believe what they say they believe because the atheist doesn't understand how they could, in that some of their positions seem inconsistent. (If they really believed abortion was murder etc.) It's just a failure to understand others. Which ironically, to bring us full circle is why I was asking the questions I was, to try and understand a position of someone who I respect as a Motte poster.
You can believe what you wish of course. But I know you are wrong. But there isn't much point in engaging someone who does doubt my motives, as in this forum I have no way of proving it to you.
So Merry Christmas and best wishes for the New Year.
What does it mean to "defend" or "justify" a position? What tools would be used to "defend" and on what grounds would one "justify"? I'm honestly still waiting for you to give me any clue as to how any of this stuff is possible.
I do not necessarily think you're lying. There's a decent chance you're genuinely uncomfortable with the inconsistency and just trying to avoid it rather than acting strategically, but who knows. Especially because it's a much more glaring and hard to shed inconsistency than weak sauce stuff about pro-lifers having some magic obligation from magic to go killing everyone everywhere for masturbating or whatever.
Perhaps I have, indeed, failed to understand how your meta-ethical position actually allows you to say the other things you're wanting to say... bringing us full circle to why I'm asking you how the whole "defending" and "justifying" bit works. Whether or not that involves concepts like being rationally defensible, determinable, etc. In what sense things are "more" or "less", etc.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link