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 -
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