site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   21339 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 27, 2025

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Sort of. I'm a Christian now and as I understand the Christian perspective it's a bit different. Christianity posits that God is apparent in nature, modulo the Fall; that creation is fundamentally good (i.e. in alignment with God's good nature). That humans can perceive much of divinity simply by observing nature and ourselves. And then, on top of that, there's direct revelation of the type to which you seem to be referring, e.g. divine entities directly communicating with humans.

Actually something which surprised me is that in my church there's a strong sentiment that Taoism is ~Christianity sans Christ. That is, Taoism is as far as human beings can correctly discern the nature and order of things without the direct revelation of Jesus. There's even a pretty cool book about it which definitely changed my perspective on a lot of this. The Tao <-> Logos connection is sublime.

I don't know about that. If the Fall did subtract from nature, it subtracted quite a lot, to the point where most of creation we can access is far from fundamentally good.

The Patrician took a sip of his beer. “I have told this to few people, gentlemen, and I suspect I never will again, but one day when I was a young boy on holiday in Uberwald I was walking along the bank of a stream when I saw a mother otter with her cubs. A very endearing sight, I’m sure you will agree, and even as I watched, the mother otter dived into the water and came up with a plump salmon, which she subdued and dragged on to a half-submerged log. As she ate it, while of course it was still alive, the body split and I remember to this day the sweet pinkness of its roes as they spilled out, much to the delight of the baby otters who scrambled over themselves to feed on the delicacy. One of nature’s wonders, gentlemen: mother and children dining upon mother and children. And that’s when I first learned about evil. It is built into the very nature of the universe. Every world spins in pain. If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior.”

Which is to say, the order of things in nature absent our, the humans', vigorous actioned disagreement, does not always seem very good for us.

That take requires all sorts of assumptions which I not only think are unwarranted from any standpoint but definitely don't match up with the broader picture of Christian philosophy.

For one, do you imagine that most humans who have ever lived would have considered it evil for a fish to be eaten alive? Indeed there are plenty of extant cultures which eat live animals habitually. The real question is why it seems evil to us.

For another, it conflates evil with suffering, or pain, or even unpleasantness. This is often a locally-useful conflation but in the big picture it doesn't make a lot of sense. Neither does it make sense to equate platonic goodness with pleasure.

It assumes that animals are having the same sort of internal experience as we are. While they certainly have minds like ours, it's not clear that they have consciousnesses like ours. Indeed one take on Eden and the Fall is that the 'Garden' was a state in which we existed just like we do now but for awareness of such evil; that we weren't intended to take on the burden of temporal sapience until some future point at which such problems would have already been solved.

But what really bugs me about it is that it assumes that anything ought to be other than as it currently is, which implies telos, which implies a creator. Only by standing on the shoulders of God can one conceive of making moral complaints about the universe, and deciding that we see the full picture and are capable of independently evaluating such things occurs to me as downright conceited and petulant. Prideful, would be the Christian term.

What ought Man to be? Is a future in which we're all reduced to constantly-euphoric sludge a worthy one? I consider the Super-Happies of Three Worlds Collide. On the other hand, if Man is intended to become divine and unite with God, reducing morality to avoiding pain and enjoying pleasure would seem to be contraindicated.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats